2012-09-20 Lester Caine wrote
> Alright insisting on a 'new account' may be wrong, but identifying the
'import source' somewhere is not unreasonable?
> We do have the problem of the 'language' used to inform other users and some
> English translations on some of the
cadastre import stuff wou
Béland Pierre wrote:
2012-09-20 Lester Caine
> Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the 'problem'
that instigated this thread is to my view of what's
> on line a very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging
information is essential and we do perh
2012-09-20 Lester Caine
> Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the
'problem' that instigated this thread is to my view of what's
> on line a
very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging
information is essential and we do perhaps need
> a little m
Pierre Béland wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
1. "it's easier to separate from normal contributions"
2. "it's more effecient for sourcing"
3. "it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We
faced that issue in the past for OD
y principle and prefer having fun
mapping from gps traces.
How much problems? How much discussions? Any consensus? Where and when?
Pierre
>
> De : Lester Caine
>À : OSM Talk
>Envoyé le : Jeudi 20 septembre 2012 7h05
>Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [Im
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
1. "it's easier to separate from normal contributions"
2. "it's more effecient for sourcing"
3. "it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We
fa
Pieren wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
Pieren - please stop banging on about this - we know that the current process is
flawed but it WAS put in place when problems arose in the Canadian imports, and
it IS current practice. If one 'local g
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account:
1. "it's easier to separate from normal contributions"
2. "it's more effecient for sourcing"
3. "it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We
fac
Pieren wrote:
There definitely is not general agreement at this time that this passage
>should be changed.
Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
the separate account became generaly agreed ? Or you can simply tell
me the communication channel and an approximate date
On 19/09/12 at 22:56 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Pieren writes:
> > Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
> > the separate account became generaly agreed ?
>
> It's always been generally agreed upon as far as I know.
"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
Luc
Pieren writes:
> Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
> the separate account became generaly agreed ?
It's always been generally agreed upon as far as I know. You could
look at the wiki and see when the text was first edited to suggest a
separate account. I would d
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> There definitely is not general agreement at this time that this passage
> should be changed.
Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where
the separate account became generaly agreed ? Or you can simply tell
me the com
12 matches
Mail list logo
