Frederik Ramm wrote:
I think that anything said until here will not be disputed by Richard
Indeed not. :)
the bit that *can* be disputed is whether or not it is permissible
to label your resulting image a database and then not release
the database behind it.
Yep. I read the EU Database
As posted on talk-gb, Google Maps appear to have switched to using their
own data rather than Tele Atlas's in the UK this morning.
This raises a couple of interesting points.
Firstly, it seems pretty clear to me that some of the data is OS-derived
(probably from OpenData or a commercial
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way denotes a split.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
If we have:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
(I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)
It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a
non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then
add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have
Michael Collinson wrote:
- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make
such a statement?
- is it true?
- can you see any negative consequences?
I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in
which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off
Freimut - I'm happy to talk to your journalist. As you might know, my day
job is as a magazine editor (our magazine celebrates its 40th anniversary
this year) and therefore, you could say, I'm quite accustomed to this kind
of work. Maybe you might be kind enough to forward my details to this
Ian Sergeant wrote:
However, if the transition happened today in Sydney, we would lose
every freeway, every trunk road, every primary road, the harbour
crossings, the foreshore. All the rivers.
Without wishing to play down your loss at all - I wouldn't want to be an
Australian OSM user at
Mayeul Kauffmann wrote:
I think data licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 cannot be put
under ODbL without written authorisation by the copyright
owner. Can you confirm this?
Yes, that's correct.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
[followups set to legal-talk, but you may want to adjust to talk-us if
focusing on LA etc.]
On 21/06/2012 17:57, Alan Mintz wrote:
Richard wrote:
...Given people's constraints on time and the community's
(understandable) desire for the redaction to get underway asap...
I've seen no such
Shu Higashi wrote:
Map data (c) ODbL 1.0 OpenStreetMap contributors and
Map tile (c) CC BY-SA 2.0 OpenStreetMap
That would be fine, but you could also do:
(c) OpenStreetMap contributors: license
where license is hyperlinked to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
cheers
Richard
--
Jani Patokallio wrote:
Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker
of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team
and possibly even contribute back to OSM!
On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of
OSM-derived data and other
Igor Brejc wrote:
4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a
Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if
you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
Person that
Kate Chapman wrote:
So is the new dataset a derived database? It seems like it is to
me. What should we be licensing this?
CC-BY is pretty much compatible with ODbL: CC-BY only requires attribution
and ODbL provides that. There may be tiny differences of legalese but
nothing substantive. So
Eric Sibert wrote:
They established a route that for instance allows to from city A
to city B but not with the short way. Instead, it is going left and
right to visit points of interest, alpine hutch and so on. They
claim that such a work is an original work.
Yes, I can see that. I've
WhereAmI wrote:
It would appear that any and all data associated with a
website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
data is used.
What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
trivially disprovable.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Someoneelse wrote:
Someone's being adding translations of place names using:
These aren't translations, they're transliterations. General consensus is
that we shouldn't add transliterations (which are essentially algorithmic)
to OSM.
Apparently Place names translations are public knowledge and
Paul Norman wrote:
Is there any relevant case law on substantial?
A brief reminder that there are two useful wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Case_law
which collect links to useful papers and cases. In particular Charlotte
Waelde's paper
[I'm going to break my rule of not posting to the mailing lists for this,
because it's an interesting query and important for OSM. Since I started
writing this, Robert has made an excellent posting which covers much of the
same ground and comes to related conclusions, but from a slightly different
Admin note: nominally I'm administrator of the legal-talk@ list. In practice
the only international OSM list to ever have been announced as moderated
is talk@, and I think locally talk-us@ may be moderated as well. Merely
administered is a much more light-touch approach and generally works well
Matt Morrow wrote:
That is in contradiction to the Open Data License/Use Cases page.
Please don't use that page. As per the preamble:
This wiki page was used for discussion and development of the move to the
Open Database License. It is not legal advice, and is likely to be
inaccurate or
On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view.
You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point
out that I disagree with all the force I can muster.
I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed
David Murn wrote:
the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to
address the problematic terms and simply tell people the
decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion.
Hardly the way to run an open community project.
I realise the phrase assume good faith is
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those
providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app
(Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet
dump of OSM as well.
They don't have to.
ODbL 4.6b: You must also offer
Luke W. (lakeyboy) wrote:
Is there already a usable URL out there that can
be put into Potlatch 2 or other editors?
You could in theory use Bing right now in Potlatch 2 if you run your own
instance, but although the code's been written, none of the public instances
(Geowiki, MapQuest, or even
Steve Bennett wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan.
Hear, hear.
The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is:
OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's
elections will take place at the start of July as
Sam Vekemans wrote:
It's a good think that potlatch2 doesn't restrict APIs :)
[...]
Oops, I mean restrict Imagery URLs.
... sorry got carried away on the last message :)
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
If you wade through the whole conversation on the josm-dev mailing
list you would be aware
that
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only.
Guess that's you
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at
any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to
ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have.
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%
You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate,
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?
But my comment before sets the
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
David Groom wrote:
Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these
are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.
No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective
David Groom wrote:
Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a
derivative database
Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a
Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of
ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for
Andrew Laughton wrote:
Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes
OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.
Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ?
Yes.
The summary (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/) says:
[crosspost removed]
80n wrote:
Most importantly it allows subsequent copies of the produced work to be
made with no attribution.
No, it doesn't. An attribution statement without a downstream requirement
is not reasonably calculated. This has been gone over ad nauseam in
legal-talk.
Richard
Hello all,
This is a special heads-up to the British and Irish mailing lists that
the licence change bot is ready to get underway, starting in our areas.
Starting this week, we will be 'redacting' the contributions (less than
1%) from the live database that are not compatible with the new
Apologies, as a non-German speaker I can only half-follow this
discussion through Google Translate, and I realise it's very rude to
post in English on a German-speaking list. I thought it would
nonetheless be valuable to follow up two points in particular, hope
you don't mind.
Andre
Ralf Otmanns wrote:
Potlatch mag sein ein tolles Tool sein, ein gut gemeintes Tool ...
leider wissen vielleicht 2 % der Leute, die es verwenden, was sie da
tun. Ihr wisst ja, dass gut gemeint das Gegentum zu gut ist. Der
Rest sind wie 4jährige, denen Du Malstifte gibst und sie dann in
(Sorry, tried to send this yesterday but my subscription to talk-de
appeared to have died! Apologies in advance for posting in English.)
Tirkon's claim about Potlatch and relation handling is complete nonsense.
To edit a relation in Potlatch 2:
* select a node or way which is a member of that
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
So in the end I am happy that someone recently coded the
missing relation support for Potlatch2, but given your
statements from previous discussions (as well as you closing
relative tickets with won't fix) wasn't really encouraging to
think that this has been
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Btw: I am not aware of the concept of parasitical criticism, what do
you intent? - reply offlist preferred to keep the noise low
Replied offlist.
Richard
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
Stephan Knauss wrote:
Das ist egal. Die Bilder sind sauber. Potlach hat aus irgendwelchen
Gründen beschlossen diese Bereiche zu verschleiern.
You are certifiably insane.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Now mapped from the source to Bristol. Thanks to everyone who did part
of it and especially Steve Brook and Ed Loach for filling the gap near
Bewdley.
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
On 08/07/2013 17:45, Andy Robinson wrote:
No schedule but I'd expect it to be a bit of an ad-hoc mapping party before
adjourning to the pub but if something more substantial gets organised
that's cool. We certainly would need:
1. A cake
Banbury Cake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banbury_cake
On 04/04/2014 11:42, Brian Prangle wrote:
Hi everyone
Just had confirmation from Mike Sanderson of Tysoe Parish Council that
May 31st is the preferred date for their Mapping Party (refreshments
provided!) and publicity will be going out in the Parish Magazine
shortly. So book the date. Tysoe is
Hello talk-ca people,
I've made a little change to Potlatch 2 that will ease the process of
loading Canvec data.
Potlatch's approach is very much here is some data that you can use to
help your mapping, rather than here is some data you can upload in
bulk, and the idea is that you load the
James Ewen wrote:
So, do dig up an old thread again... is there a way to merge
adjoining areas in Potlatch yet? I got a great answer from Adam Dunn
on using the JOSM join ways feature. I'd like to be able to do this
in Potlatch as it is annoying to have to switch to another editor
just to be
James Ewen wrote:
What would be making it impossible to create a lake with two islands
with Potlatch2?
In that example, the outer way isn't closed. If you close the outer way
(i.e. same node at the start and end) then it'll work fine.
cheers
Richard
overflorian a écrit:
Google Map Maker est sacrément bien fait : c'est simple, efficace,
sans flash ... c'est un peu l'interface qu'on attendait depuis
toujours pour potlatch !
En Anglais, on dit patches welcome. Vous allez nous aider?
amitiés
Richard
--
View this message in context:
can't get better if no-one
writes code for it.
amitiés
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Google-Map-Maker-arrive-en-France-Richard-Fairhurst-tp5580844p5581296.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Jo a écrit:
Maetma,
Je n'ai pas réussi de restaurer ce changeset:
12394958 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12394958
Je l'ai fait:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12447296
J'ai trouvé Maetma trés impoli sur trac.openstreetmap.org, alors cette
vandalisme ne m'étonne
Pieren a écrit:
Ces deux points nécessitent du développement assez
conséquent
Je serai heureux d'ajouter réprojection Lambert-spherical Mercator à
Potlatch 2.
L'accès aux images avec cookie sera moins facile, mais on peut créer un
proxy cadastre_tools (sur dev.osm.org peut-être).
Pieren a écrit:
You can find more details about the special WMS protocol on the
wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/
WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Aspects_techniques_du_cadastre_en_ligne).
I could expand it with the details about how to retrieve CODE
field (the municipality ID
verdy_p a écrit:
Pour revenir au sujet, si Potlatch était développé sans Flash,
en HTML5+Javascript, il serait plus viable à long terme. Si
Flash est en fin de vie, Potlatch 2 aussi est condamné à
disparaître dans sa version actuelle. Il est peut-être temps
d'envisager Potlatch 3...
Nicolas Dumoulin a écrit:
1. un éditeur facile et performant. Il parle de partir de potlach,
dommage j'aurai préféré la solution javascript en développement.
Tu as vu iD (http://www.geowiki.com/) ?
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Nicolas Moyroud a écrit:
C'est vraiment une honte d'avoir effaceacute; le texte de Pieren du Wiki
!
Without wanting to reawaken the argument, I think Pierre's wiki text was a
little injudicious and I can see why Grant removed it. Writing a local
community guideline instructing people to reply
Christian Quest a écrit:
Ce n'est effectivement pas très diplomatique de la part de
Pieren, mais ce n'est pas plus diplomatique de la part du
DWG d'auto-proclamer des règles sans discussion préalable
et de bloquer des comptes pour la seule raison qu'on ne
prend pas en compte leurs
Christian Quest a écrit:
Il faut prendre en compte l'aspect très peu pratique et l'utilité
très très limitée de ce compte dédié pour les imports faits
de façon parcellaire comme c'est le cas pour le cadastre,
mais aussi pour beaucoup d'import de données opendata
comme nous le faisons
Jean-Marc Liotier a écrit:
Ok - alors peut-être qu'une limite explicite pour la dimension
d'un changeset serait intéressante pour apporter une
discrimination objective entre import mineur et import massif.
Un peu comme
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064482.html
Christian Quest a écrit:
Si je comprends bien, cette proposition permettra le blocage si
l'on n'utilise pas de compte dédié, et permettra aussi le blocage
si on ne met pas les bons tags dans le changeset... de mieux
en mieux !
Oh for goodness' sake, Christian.
There are two opposing
Christian Quest a écrit:
J'ai proposé sur talk@ d'utiliser les tags, mais sans le compte
dédié qui n'a plus d'intérêt avec les tags.
Rendre les deux obligatoires ce n'est vraiment pas aller
vers un compromis mais rajouter une couche dobligation
supplémentaire.
Ah, non, tu n'as pas
RÉAU Simon a écrit:
S'il te plaît Richard pourrait tu écrire en français sur la
liste française.
J'essaie, oui, mais mon français n'est pas très bon. Ma première petite amie
était française et en ce temps-là je pouvais parler français assez bien...
mais c'était 1992, et maintenant, 2012, je
Christian Quest a écrit:
Un import de bâti de plus de 2 nodes est-il
concerné ? Quand je lis ta proposition, c'est oui,
ou alors il faut que je retourne en cours d'anglais.
Alors, si tu penses pas 20,000 mais 200,000, dites ça sur la liste talk@!
Richard
--
View this message in
Christian Quest a écrit:
Richard, en quoi le volume change quelque chose ?
C'est un impact plus grand sur le map (et le communauté) alors on a besoin
de visibilité maximale. Je pense que c'est approprié que, par example,
DaveHansenTiger et xybot sont des comptes dediés.
Mais tout d'abord, c'est
Teuxe a écrit:
J'ai l'impression que nous avons été entendus...
Oui. :)
amitiés
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Encore-un-alignement-de-points-abusif-liea-Potlatch-2-tp5729034p5729634.html
Sent from the France mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Marc SIBERT a écrit:
le fork, c'est *le* changement de licence. Après tout, le projet fosm
n'est que le maintient de l'existant (la branche principale !).
98.7% vs 1.3% (d'aprés http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/license)? Ceci
n'est pas un fork.
Christophe Merlet (RedFox) wrote:
Plus de 400 000 contributeurs OSM. Seul 29264 ont dit oui aux
nouveaux termes du contributeur... Même pas 8%...
Moins de 140 000 contributeurs OSM [1]: number of users != Number of
contributors.
29 264 ont dit oui. De plus, environ 59 000 contributeurs
Hélène PETIT a écrit:
Puis je suis partie à la recherche d'autres groupes de modification
appartenant au user anonyme.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Anonymous_edits
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-November/020022.html
Philippe Pary a écrit:
Cependant je crois deviner que mes compères seraient plus
motivés à prendre SotM 2013 que SotM-eu cette année.
Personnellement, je serais très heureux de voir SotM-EU 2012 à Lille. Tokyo,
c'est trop loin pour moi et pour la plupart d'OSMeurs britanniques.
amitiés
Jean-Francois (Jeff) Faudi wrote:
La liste des applications pourra être completée ultérieurement
mais actuellement la décision est de ne fournir la donnée
qu'au sein d'applications clients lourds et non d'applications
web. Désolé pour les utilisateurs de Potlach pour l'instant.
Nous
rldhont a écrit:
Dans Potlatch tu ne peux pas créer de relation de relation donc
la relation line.
Tu peux créer une relation de relations avec Potlatch 2:
- Choisis la relation route (Advanced - double-clique)
- Choisis Advanced et puis Add to
- Choisis la super-relation line (ou New
Pmz a écrit:
Je viens de détecter une nouvelle victime de potlatch2: la frontière sud
de la commune de la bacconière (53). J'en ai profité pour ouvrir
un ticket à ce sujet !
Ce n'est pas victime de potlatch2, c'est victime de newbie. Meme si vous
ne pouvez pas créer un patch pour Potlatch 2,
Spod OSM wrote:
Looking at the OSM data, it does look as if there is missing maxspeed
data on some of the roads involved (but the maxspeed on the major
length of motorway is correctly tagged), but presumably OSRM uses
sensible scaled down defaults, relative to the way type, in that case?
Any
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Generally it seems that different ideas in different areas of the world,
of what a trunk road is supposed to be, now fall onto our feet ;-)
One option that comes to my mind would be that you change the road
classification in Britain to use trunk only on those ways
Michal Palenik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:57:23PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
But I don't
think we can easily implement different interpretations of the tags on
a per-country basis.
in postgis/anyspatialdatabase, this would be fairly easy (except for
filling in the data by
Rudolf Mayer wrote:
Ideal should be http://osrm.at/atu, which however gets a slower time
computed - and I don't really understand why...
- Both ways have the same speed limit (ro:Urban)
- The second option is shorter
The trunk road (219294960) has smoothness=very_bad set on it. This will
OJW wrote:
I'm also penciling-in a week of Devon/North Cornwall exploration in the
weekend of 31 August - 3rd September
Worth alerting Mike tracing NPE maps Calder? He's local:
http://www.guillemotdesign.org/
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing
Tom Chance wrote:
I've just noticed someone doing very rapid and cool work around Dulwich Park,
which is cool! It would be good to co-ordinate a bit. Since it was done in
Potlach there are also bits that need cleaning up, which I'm happy to do in
JOSM, but I don't want to step on anyone's
Tom Chance wrote:
Here's the area, just have a look in JOSM:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.44551183981207lon=-0.077243376360124zoom=15
Problems I've found include:
1. Adding ways to existing nodes often doesn't work, resulting in two nodes
right next to each other. See, for example,
At the start of September, Simon Berry is cycling from Land's End to
John O'Groats entirely on the National Cycle Network.
He will be taking a GPS and has kindly agreed that OSM can use the
tracklogs. This should be an excellent boost for our NCN coverage.
More at http://www.gpscycle.com/ .
Jonathan Bennett wrote:
Does someone want to own up to mapping the northern Hindhead Tunnel
approach?
You can find out who mapped a section through the API:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.4/way/4945067/history
My first thought was that it must have been added by our resident
tunnel
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
The second edit was mine (i.e. I added the note) - so why hasn't my
username showed up?
Have you made your edits public?
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
(moved to talk-gb)
Andy Allan wrote:
I haven't tackled the concept of not-signed-but-nice-anyway routes -
so far I've been concentrating on routes signed by external agencies
How do you (or anyone else) think I should tag the National Byway?
(http://www.nationalbyway.org)
I'd really like
Andy Allan wrote:
OK, much as I'm loath to propose new tags from past experience on
the list, here's some suggestions.
[...]
Let me know which option you pick, and I'll get it into this week's map.
Thanks for the ideas. I've remembered how much I hate tagging discussions now.
Anyway.
I've
Via CARTO-SoC...
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:55:18 BST
From: Richard Peace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello
I have been approached by leading cycle map
cartographers Cycle City Guides (see
www.cyclecityguides.co.uk
for moreinfo) to get
The nights are closing in and the weather's getting lousy... cycle
mapping after work isn't such an appealing option right now. So here's
a mapping project where you can survey with the heater on.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_A_Roads
The aim is to
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
The nights are closing in and the weather's getting lousy...
Is it? :-)
It is when you live part of the week on a boat and you only have a
little diesel stove to keep you warm!
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Russ (Justec) wrote:
Just want to clarify something - if a road is partially mapped, should it
be listed, with a note of which part is not mapped?
Yes, please do.
Kudos to the mapper who saw an A road on the list and went and mapped
it yesterday (you know who you are :) ).
cheers
Richard
(moved back to talk from talk-gb)
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
TBH I'd prefer highway=unsurfaced kept in - I use it extensively. Even
better though - and this is my own high horse :-) - we really need to sort
out highway for non-roads which at the moment is a mixture of physical
characteristics
Socks on IRC has just spotted Oxford has gone hi-res.
Any other additions?
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Hello all,
I fancy going to map Worcester on Saturday 23rd Feb. Anyone else up
for it?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Worcester
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?
lat=52.1895lon=-2.2237zoom=13layers=B0FT
(lovely place, one of Britain's smaller cities, mainline trains from
London and
Stephen Coast wrote:
I'd rather not try to herd cats on the list in terms of dates, but
ideas for
locations appreciated.
http://giscussions.blogspot.com/2007/03/intellect.html
Anyone can map the UK, apparently there are 10 companies currently
mapping London (I know one, how many can you
Mike Paley wrote:
I see 'openstreetmap' already exists using 'funny' GPX files. For a
couple
of years now I've been thinking about 'OpenMapSource' - Garmin's
MapSource
type mapping but 'open' and created by Garmin users - or at least
those who
can create and handle GDB files.
Being
I've uploaded NPE tiles at zoom level 14 for the whole of Wales and
the Marches, plus two areas requested individually (Birmingham and
the Chilterns).
You can trace from them in Potlatch by making sure you're at zoom 14
(hover over the 'Edit' tab and check the URL if you're not sure),
Shaun McDonald wrote:
Why not do this for other layers, like Yahoo too?
Yes, there's a wider issue here and it's one I'm (not alone in)
considering at the moment.
Potlatch will before too long automatically add a tag showing what
background layer was in effect when you committed an edit.
Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote:
It may be worth reassembling the NPE map (from tiles or backup)
and retiling, it but it would be a big job! (The potlatch blog
mentioned anchor points and improving alignments...)
I'm plotting anchor points on 5km x 5km squares which is working
pretty well. You
1101 - 1200 of 1720 matches
Mail list logo
