Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Warin
On 6/1/2016 7:18 AM, Richard wrote: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more trouble than use a

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Mikel Maron
Thanks -- yes appreciate the heads up on the issue, and please give us a few days to get this fixed. Mapbox takes attribution very seriously, and has relationships with the relevant customers to get this addressed. And by the way, working on setting up a contact point where attribution issues on

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Richard
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:01:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : > > > often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge > > or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more > > trouble than use and I tend to agree. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Richard
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:13:36AM -0700, Ben Discoe wrote: > FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM: > > Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1 > Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1 nice.. but still need to select or add two nodes, split the ways, and select the correct segment before

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Milo van der Linden
I agree, as we are on "speaking terms" with mapbox, it seems to me that we can easily fix this like gentlemen. Kind regards, Milo 2016-05-31 22:35 GMT+02:00 Benoît Barteaux : > They don't seem to cut the image, as the problem seems to come from mapbox > directly. > > I think that sending now a

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Benoît Barteaux
They don't seem to cut the image, as the problem seems to come from mapbox directly. I think that sending now a copyright notice to BK/mapbox would seem a bit premature and upfront. Give them time for the email to travel to the right person and to think/react for a bit. After some time then, m

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Clifford Snow
OK - Sent message to Burger King's legal department. Let's see what happens. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Mikel, > I wonder if they just crop the image for the website, cutting off > attribution? They haven't replied to me, so I am going to look for > something like

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Nicolás Alvarez
Don't rush it. Give Mapbox time to handle it from their side. And I don't see how AWS is involved, the image is coming from api.tiles.mapbox.com... -- Nicolás 2016-05-31 17:16 GMT-03:00 Clifford Snow : > Mikel, > I wonder if they just crop the image for the website, cutting off > attribution?

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Clifford Snow
Mikel, I wonder if they just crop the image for the website, cutting off attribution? They haven't replied to me, so I am going to look for something like a legal contact at Burger King. Though we could issue a copyright takedown to AWS. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: > T

Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution

2016-05-31 Thread Mikel Maron
Thanks for the report, we're looking into sorting out this attribution issue at Mapbox. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, May 28, 2016 4:51 AM, Milo van der Linden wrote: Burgerking is using the static image api from mapbox: http://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Ben Discoe
FWIW, I simply set the following key mapping in JOSM: Shift-D: add bridge=yes, layer=1 Shift-C: add tunnel=culvert, layer=-1 Making bridges/culverts is then very quick and easy. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : >> >> often eno

Re: [OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard : > often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge > or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more > trouble than use and I tend to agree. > I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case why

Re: [OSM-talk] Minor highways crossing, was ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Richard
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:00:04PM +, Pierre Béland wrote: > A good simplification would be to allow bridge=culvert or tunnel=culvert on a > highway node A lot simpler and more rapid to trace or revise highways with > successive culverts. You mean http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Propos

Re: [OSM-talk] Minor highways crossing, was ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Pierre Béland
A good simplification would be to allow bridge=culvert or tunnel=culvert on a highway node A lot simpler and more rapid to trace or revise highways with successive culverts.     Pierre De : Richard À : talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : mardi 31 mai 2016 9h03 Objet : [OSM-talk] ford

[OSM-talk] ford=no for highways which are known to have no fords?

2016-05-31 Thread Richard
Hi, often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more trouble than use and I tend to agree. Splitting the ways and applying a bunch of tags for every single tunnel/bridge is work and has a non-zero chance to int