Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I'd suggest that if and when there is a "more open" OCM, then you might > argue to replace Andy's one with it. I don't see a point in shooting > ourselves in the foot before then. > Do you see the point in building OSM in the first place? A

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Richard Mann > wrote: >> >> But I'd also like there to be an open, straight Mapnik (ie no contour >> overlay and no neat transparent route overlays) cycle-oriented map, to be >> improved by the crowd. (Ditto

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

Look at http://xn--pnvkarte-m4a.de/ and in particular the joins between routed ways at high zoom. Andy does all the routes on a separate layer to remove all the overlaps (some kind of filtering; dunno the details), then recombines. Yes this would be good to do on Mapnik, but

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > But I'd also like there to be an open, straight Mapnik (ie no contour > overlay and no neat transparent route overlays) cycle-oriented map, to be > improved by the crowd. (Ditto a public transport map)

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Anthony wrote: > If OCM isn't going to be open, then it shouldn't be in the main map. > Keep it on, for the same reasons that it got put on in the first place - that it shows what you can do with elevation data "OpenContourMap"?), and with neat transparent lines t

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Anthony wrote: > How so? If it's such a big financial burden, and isn't providing any > benefit to whoever is incurring the financial burden, then that's even more > the reason to take it off the main map. > OCM is providing plenty of benefit to plenty of people.

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Now, a comment from Anthony: > >> The motivation should be simple. Open up the stylesheet, and you get to >> be in the main map. Don't open up the stylesheet, and you don't get to be >> in the main map. No demands, no guilt, just a simple

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

I'd like to thank Andy for his very useful input into this discussion. Although I don't think I've posted in this thread, I did have some of the misconceptions he referred to. It would probably be worth documenting some of this stuff - a simple "why is it called OpenCycleMap", for instance. And per

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > explain what would be the advantages from my side? > > I think you probably have release more than enough open stuff to know > about the motivations of doing so ;-) But I agree that once people start > to *demand* you release something, th

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

Hi, Andy Allan wrote: > And most of all, I don't want someone > to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or > two changes and call it their own But isn't that what is bound to happen? (At least if a fraction of the unhappiness about OCM translates in coding traction...)

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > >> Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as >> ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining >> about OpenCycleMap and its "openness". I make

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as > ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining > about OpenCycleMap and its "openness". I make the styles for > OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out w

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > As for the name, it was originally "The OpenStreetMap Cycle Map" and I > pondered long and hard on the use of the word "The" in the title since > that sounded a bit exclusive. Eventually I gave up worrying about it > since there actually only *

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Dave F. wrote: > I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from > the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're > not really open, are they? I'll ask you for one favour - when you are talking about me, please call