I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out
data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the
rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.
A PNG showing the OSM coa
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Norman"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filte
I was just going to suggest this, while it limits you to CC_by-SA 2.0
as a licence for tiles (or similar), there is no reason that you
couldn't use a pre-licence change coastline for rendering (in the case
of the main OSM site, the tiles are going to remain CC-by-SA 2.0 anyway).
Simon
Am 24.03.
>
> One advantage of remapping is the possibility that there are now better data
> sets available for import than the PGS data which was originally used. I'm
> particularly thinking here of the US & Canada.
This is exactly what I've been doing – non-safe coastline in the UK using the
OS OpenD
Paul Norman writes:
> I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
> latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out
> data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the
> rebuild will be, but the results are worri
- Original Message -
From: "Russ Nelson"
To: "Paul Norman"
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
Paul Norman writes:
> I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using
> the
&
David Groom writes:
> more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference
> between the resulting data in this instance and data which "If it was
> subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different".
How would we ever know? They're anonymous. If they want to come
f
On 24.03.2012 19:12, Russ Nelson wrote:
David Groom writes:
> more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference
> between the resulting data in this instance and data which "If it was
> subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different".
How would we ever k
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:42 AM
> To: Paul Norman
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
>
> Paul Norman writes:
> > I have been running a nigh
Stephan Knauss writes:
> Users not agreeing or not responding have to be treated the same way,
> regardless of their nick known or not.
Non-responsive.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 1
> -Original Message-
> From: David Groom [mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russ Nelson"
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
>
>
> > Paul No
Paul Norman writes:
> > It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
> > declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
> > land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
> > successfully pursue a claim of trespass.
>
> Copyri
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:21 PM
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
>
> Paul Norman writes:
> > > It's particularly galling that a
- Original Message -
From: "Russ Nelson"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
Paul Norman writes:
> > It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
> > declined are havi
David Groom writes:
> > But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone
> > hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You
>
> The argument "hey, we understand we don't know if we have any right to use
> this data, buts lets leave it in and hope no one
On 3/24/2012 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Paul Norman"
- Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be
imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP
in the
ways and they can be retained.
Are you saying that it is i
Paul Norman wrote
>
> When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly
> from the following accounts:
> hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica)
> Kin (Antarctica)
> Blars (US West coast)
>
Actually, in might be pretty simple in the first case. To the best of my
knowledge
just fyithe generation of the processedc_p failed. It say it has 46 Byte.
coastlinec_p seems to be okay
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5604606.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
> From: ThomasB [mailto:toba0...@yahoo.de]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
>
> just fyithe generation of the processedc_p failed. It say it has 46
> Byte.
> coastlinec_p seems to be okay
My jxapi instance is lagged behind - it lost its state.txt file in
do you think that you can update the data before we enter to the read only
phase? I don't want to push you...you data was very helpful for remapping.
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5607499.html
Sent from the General Discussion mail
20 matches
Mail list logo
