On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side.
I know you weren't referring to me when you said that, but I get the
impression you think that's my position as well. Here's the thing. I'm not
on the BSD side, morally.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
want it to be SA.
Morally, I want my data
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
list and the wiki...
There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA doesn't
work, but that doesn't make them true.
The only plausibly
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
list and the wiki...
There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
Who's Trevor?
I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
Who's
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
In my opinion, CC-BY-SA, like the GPL (which states it explicitly) is
intended to guarantee your freedom, not to take away your freedom.
I should add the phrase to share and change the works
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
troll trolly troll troll
How can I argue with such erudite points?
We're now in the land of relativism where to make a point I have to go and
collect quotes from lawyers, which you probably won't believe anyway, when
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
CC-BY-SA doesn't work is not the kind of statement I think some people
with actual law degrees are any more qualified to answer than anyone else
anyway. Not until you define what
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement.
I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone
else.
So let me get this straight
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a
statement. I said they are no more qualified to make
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person individually will be
able to choose what to do with their data.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
their data to be worth a vote
The vote isn't about their data, though. Each person
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and
change the license?
What do you mean change the license? Isn't your position that CC-BY-SA is
invalid in the first place?
The OSMF doesn't need permission
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
I think you hit the nail on the head.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
SteveC schreef:
Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
Because I'm not convinced
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.comwrote:
Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA doesn't work and what work
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about
PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for
business because they allow businesses to do what they want.
The matter
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is
the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for
individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues.
I don't know. This
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
now:
- - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
- - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Anthony schreef:
There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a
restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number
of accesses per key, is there?
Is there for Cloudmade
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Anthony schreef:
You're confusing me with Lambertus. I never said anything good about
Cloudmade.
I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Anthony osm at inbox.org writes:
Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data
I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative
Commons,
and Open Data Commons, all are telling us
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Michael Barabanov
michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote:
Really, considering how many discussions about how to map things (just
recall all those footway/cycleway discussions) have been on these lists, at
least tagging seems to be a creative process right now.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going
forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you
are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0. We
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
What I'm curious about is if a document is written in XML can be
considered copyrighted, why can't geo-data be copyrighted as well
since it's not a database of facts, but a document of information
created, in this
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
1, 2. Dual carriageway
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and
maintain pairs of roads
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of project
sanity: We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
different effects in different countries.
And that is one of the
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
Hi all,
I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the
OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
My data. The
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data (i.e.,
why is CC-BY-SA supposedly indefensible for OSM data)? I'm talking about the
US-type of copyright that is based on sufficient creativity, and not
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on
the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs along
with my business cards.
I think you are only
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly
permissible
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use
my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever. I don't have
a problem with that. What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not
change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some
share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more
relaxed way (and
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better
represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither
set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other.
What set of
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of
nodes for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics
for each geographical feature can still be considered a creative
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
improving existing data, and
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org mailto:
o...@inbox.org wrote:
I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
to use my previous contributions
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still
let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree
options?
By the way, I should clarify, I certainly don't plan to stop
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
My understanding is that by using this site you agree to the ODbL will be
part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject*
the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL.
Hmm, thinking about this more
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Also, I don't think it is in anybody's intention to put anything else than
OSM data under the ODbL. So it should really not read by using this
site... but instead by using OSM data from this site... or so.
A specious
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.820693lon=144.919989zoom=18layers=B000FTF
This looks right to you?
I think it could be rendered better, especially if there is width
information provided, but I think
Google Maps maps them as single roads.
Not around here.
http://tinyurl.com/yz8y8dh
Another good example: http://tinyurl.com/ye76u9v
I suspect what you're seeing in cases where Google Maps is using a single
road is simply Google Maps not getting around to fixing its data yet.
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
site. If you have not
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
relicense.
Why not
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be
copyrighted. Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go
*beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
And even the licensing debate could be seen
as support even though that indeed has a little bit more of a
controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license
is broken and inapplicable to geodata as
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
unenforceable,
Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
legal list if you think it's too
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore
I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of
any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data.
Which is to
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal
list
(so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor
Terms
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
ODbL?
Absolutely nothing.
your email here proves you are aware
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They
have
said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.
They also said this about the ODbL:
In brief, we believe that the
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a policy*.
PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I misinterpreting
PD-like?
It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.
Well, you may think
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com
st...@asklater.com wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
policy*.
PD
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM would
even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements in order
to
impose
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
the agreement doesn't kick in from the reading of the license, it
kicks in when you do something that only the license would permit you
to do.
The whole basis of the switch away from CC-BY-SA is that there is doubt as
to
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law.
No it doesn't. Copyright law imposes requirements. CC-BY-SA provides a
waiver to some of those requirements.
ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
our choices are basically the following:
1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't
work for us.
2) move to a new license.
option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
therefore, if someone downloads if from
them, the license notice is intact
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law.
No it doesn't. Copyright law
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I've uploaded 10 examples of median strips here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Divided_road#Images_for_discussion
Hopefully we can use them to discuss whether this proposal is helpful, and
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk wrote:
In connection with a discussion we are currently having on the talk-dk
list
about how to map cycleways I recently made a page on the wiki [0]. The
purpose of the page is to explore the different problems/benefits you
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
3 as actually just a wide road marking. Such cross hatch areas do need to
be
covered but this a single road with 'advisory' road marking rather than a
divider?
I don't know. I actually got a traffic ticket once for
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.netwrote:
Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net writes:
and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable
from access=private
on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from
an
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, I'd say the renderer is right. Both access=private and
access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
explicit approval. In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
There are perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which
are closed.
For example, the bridge between Ellis Island and the mainland of New
Jersey. Should that be tagged with access=private, access=no,
access=closed
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Zeke Farwell ezeki...@gmail.com wrote:
Here are all the reasons for a road existing but being closed
(distinguished from private) that I can think of:
- Under construction (this already has a tagging sytem)
- Damaged or blocked by disaster.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:
Why oh why oh why do some people insist on wasting time trying to import
loads of data?
Why do some people insist on wasting time surveying data that someone else
has already surveyed?
Probably much the same
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I find the current practice of duplicating minor roads when there is a
median strip pretty unsatisfactory.
I was thinking about this recently when we had the map everything as
areas thread, and I have to agree with you to
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I'm not sure how this would work without using areas, though. And
even then, it'll be complicated. I think the proposal at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I should also have asked whether the widths of the roads are
accurately measured. Presumably we need to know the width of each road
and the distance between them, at each point. But if you want to model
the roads that
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there other downsides I'm missing?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention a big problem. Using forward/backward
breaks when a way is reversed. So divider=u_turn_forward and
divider=u_turn_backward are a bad idea.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/3 Anthony o...@inbox.org
Are there other downsides I'm missing?
I think the biggest downside is that it creates two accepted ways to
map the same thing. Even that, I suppose, is not a problem, if we
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, put it this way: if this was implemented, I would duplicate far
fewer roads in future.
If it worked (and I really haven't delved into the details enough to
check), I might be convinced to add division information
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
ie:
|
=+=
|
With junction=fourway or whatever at the +.
fourway would be the only tag that's not ambiguous. Your junction
was already solved properly by turn restrictions.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's take this situation:
B
|
A==C
You're going from A to B. I'm saying that the router doesn't attempt to make
the turn because the way A-C is marked as divided=median, and there's
nothing
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Jeff Barlow j...@wb6csv.net wrote:
Others, all unnamed, I'm less sure how to handle. Many are not
roads at all. Some just simply don't exist. I'm not sure where
they came from. Others seem to roughly correspond to irrigation
canals.
If it's unnamed, says
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Jeff Barlow j...@wb6csv.net wrote:
Some of the local bogus roads seem to at least roughly
correspond to irrigation canals.
One of the ways TIGER segments were generated is by scanning satellite
photos and/or old maps for things that looked like roads. That's
What's wrong with access=no?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/1 Liz ed...@billiau.net
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Mike Harris wrote:
Broadly agree but why is 'meadow' not a land use? I believe that it is -
in
rural England at least ... See
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The
licence does not force you to distribute or make any data available.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
An area of grass is - to me - not a path. A path, IMHO, is something
that exists independently of people walking or not walking on it
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What if I map the entire section of grass which is within the right of
way as a polygon with highway=path, area=yes? That's how we represent
infinite
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries? In a wiki, even? That's ambitious! I'd prefer to stick to
mapping what's on the ground.
You can
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
countries?
What
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Anthony wrote:
But in order to make a decent
routing application, someone is going to have to maintain a database
of certain laws in any states they wish for their routing application
to work.
It is certainly
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Interesting. I don't know if I agree with that or not. I certainly
don't want to be involved in a project which encourages people to
break the law, since
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
(This is of course bordering on the philosophical since I believe that one
could say that we actively encourage the Chinese to break their laws; at
least we have numerous web pages suggesting you should take a GPS, map
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
Btw - no need for highway=grass, why not use highway=path (or =footway, see
previous message) + surface=grass (which seems well-established).
I was just proposing a compromise. I don't care what the tags are so
long as
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The whole point of using an area is that it doesn't behave like a
line, though. If all you have is a line with a width, use a line with
a width tag
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Teemu Koskinen teemu.koski...@mbnet.fi wrote:
With areas you can explicitly map how neighboring ways are connected to
each other, this is useful for sidewalks, lanes etc. If we were to map the
ways with only simple way with a width, a relation would be needed to
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Without good editor support, mapping highways as areas is already
quite cumbersome.
It's not so bad, for areas with good aerial imagery (I wouldn't call
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
In summary, I have no problem with people mapping everything as areas;
however, I believe for the moment we will have to use both areas and ways.
If you're going to use an area and a way, don't tag them both with
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I missed the crucial bit, but presumably any area=yes highway
has an implicit line running down the middle of it. The renderer would
use that line at lower zoom levels exactly as it uses any other line.
That kind
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a couple of thoughts:
1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path
where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of
trying to make routers work better. Map reality -
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
When is there a path and when is there not a path? I walk through an
area of grass every time I go to the park near my house. Isn't that a
path which
1001 - 1100 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
