[OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread pec...@gmail.com
Hi! I write a work for which I did a small comparison of walking/transit routing/data between digital maps for my diploma work. One thing caught my eye is that while MapQuest have this nice open.mapquest.com site with all up-to-date and nicely legit attribution to us, their default site for

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread Dave F.
On 15/05/2013 16:19, pec...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! So maybe anyone know: 1) why it has reasonably old OSM data on main MapQuest site 2) and why it isn't properly attributed If you zoom in on the link you gave, the attribution changes to OSM ( it's one of the few that lists it as ODbl). Do

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread Dave F.
On 15/05/2013 21:25, Dave F. wrote: On 15/05/2013 16:19, pec...@gmail.com wrote: 2) and why it isn't properly attributed It's also listed under LegalAttributions at the bottom of the side panel to the left. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread Toby Murray
Yeah, MapQuest is obviously mixing and matching some of our data on their regular (not open.mapquest.*) map. If you zoom in to z6 or higher and then pan from South America to Mexico you will see the attribution change from OSM to Navteq as soon as Mexico enters the viewport. Toby On Wed, May

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
On 15/mag/2013, at 17:19, pec...@gmail.com pec...@gmail.com wrote: their default site for capital of my country has started to show details which are clearly from OSM (stuff I did myself), but from year a half ago or so. Attribution to default site is MapQuest, portions NAVTEQ, couldnt

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread Dave F.
On 15/05/2013 21:41, Dave F. wrote: On 15/05/2013 21:25, Dave F. wrote: On 15/05/2013 16:19, pec...@gmail.com wrote: 2) and why it isn't properly attributed It's also listed under LegalAttributions at the bottom of the side panel to the left. Apologies, I miss read your post. I thought

Re: [OSM-talk] Strange and mystifying aka another license violation

2013-05-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
On 15/mag/2013, at 22:41, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: It's also listed under LegalAttributions at the bottom of the side panel to the left. yes, (c) osm contributors is there and a link to our copyright page, no explicit mention of the odbl