HI there,
I thought FOSM was off topic, where are all the moderators to stop this thread?
I never wanted to leave osm, osm made me leave. I never wanted to fork
osm, osm forked itself to some new license.
lets keep the facts straight, people just wanted to continue with the
same system as before,
On 05/29/2012 12:48 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> Sorry Emilie, it’s a pity if that creates some loss of data,
> but you should take it like a man
I'm afraid she won't.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://list
The node referenced created by cetest will not survive redaction (and I
assume the rest of data to be similar), and neither do the edits on the
way indicate anything other than normal editing (see
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=7539781). I am slightly at a
loss to see what exactly Gert
n"
>Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 8:43 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>
>
>Hello,
>
>
>I will retract the troll bit as you seem actually to be "enthusiastic" but you
>seriously have to work on the perc
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Emilie Laffray
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
> conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
> That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind
> of annoying.
I
>
> responsible for that !
>
> ** **
>
> Gert
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Van:* Emilie Laffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM
> *Aan:* ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
> *
Hello,
Fine.
So you are saying that the email you sent to Thomas was out of kindness not
out of petty goals? Also you are not answering my points in the first
place. I find you pretty disingenuous at time and while I do respect the
other projects out there, you are not helping them in any way. As
ffray [mailto:emilie.laff...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:19 PM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: Thomas Davie; talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
Hello,
First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to sha
On Tuesday 29 May 2012, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> I did not give you permission to share
> a private conversation on the list.
>
> That is also about copyrights, Davie.
Public interest defence trumps this.
Next!
robert.
_
Hello,
First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private
conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court.
That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is
kind of annoying. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I
agree with it);
On 29 May 2012 11:01, Thomas Davie wrote:
> If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed
> that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably
> have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source.
I don't know if a lawyer has s
On 29 May 2012, at 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> I did not give you permission to share
> a private conversation on the list.
>
> That is also about copyrights, Davie.
Sure, but having a copyright there would involve having made an original work
in a skilled way,
: talk Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 29 May 2012, at 10:36, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> Off list ! No need to annoy the list with comments with suggestion on
> how to cheat even more.
No, I'd rather keep it on list, as I'
On 29 May 2012 11:28, Thomas Davie wrote:
> On 29 May 2012, at 10:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
>
>> That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street...
>
> The fact that all the tags were ODbL safe had already been established – they
> were created by another user who had
On 29 May 2012, at 10:36, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> Off list ! No need to annoy the list with
> comments with suggestion on how to cheat even more.
No, I'd rather keep it on list, as I'd really like people to know the quickest
and best methods for keeping as much da
On 29 May 2012, at 10:27, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
> That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street...
The fact that all the tags were ODbL safe had already been established – they
were created by another user who had accepted.
Thanks
Tom Davie
though not uploaded)
>> through large parts of the south west in Holland, will
>> show if the new author actually drove the route,
>> copied the data that I created,
>> or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Gert
&
On 29 May 2012, at 10:15, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> At the time it was judged to be important to
> keep reference to the original and data.
> I remember copying lots of old AND tags
> onto my created roads.
>
> I think what should be leading here is
> the version numb
2012 11:04 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
> Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight.
>
> A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
> Maar
editing.
Regards,
Maarten
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/29/2012 3:
gt; Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
> Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>
> On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>&
fietsersbond.
Regards
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl]
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM,
On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
"It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply
modified
it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot
ers=M
>>>
>>> Look at Caracasstraat !
>>> (among others in the region).
>>>
>>> Gert
>>>
>>> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
>>> Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
>>> Verzonden: maandag 28
ed testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv -
Gert
Gremmen wrote:
[ ... ]
However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied
on).
>
> Gert
>
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
> Verzonden: maandag 28 mei 2012 21:53
> Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
> CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-tal
ng bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
[ ... ]
> However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, del
At 2012-05-28 12:42, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
After having been banned from OSM for not signing the CT, my
contributions, that have been well received by the community in the past
have been removed by the april 1st license shift.
No.
I don't understand why the respo
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
> Why is there no tool for checking on copy paste copyright infringement…
I have some stuff in the works, but it is taking a long time to
process all this data. but dont worry, anyone who is copying and
pasting w
I was under the impression that OSM is riddled with data that is not .odbl
compliant. In some of my personal mapping my sources may not have been
fully personal observation which is more or less what I understand .odbl
requirements to be which is why I requested my contributions be deleted
since I
Hi Gert,
First, I'd like to make a semantic point – you were not banned from OSM for not
signing up to the CTs, you are still welcome to contribute, as long as you
contribute in a way that's compatible with the new license.
More importantly though, what's happened here is absolutely reprehensib
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
[ ... ]
> However, it was not meant that the data were simply to be copied, deleted
> and re-pasted into the map using a fake account.
True. Copy / pasting is not the same as remapping from permitted sources.
After having been banned from OSM for not signing the CT, my
contributions, that have been well received by the community in the past
have been removed by the april 1st license shift.
The Foundation has called anyone in the community to reduce lost by
remapping the concerned areas.
However,
33 matches
Mail list logo
