This may be of interested to Brisbane OSMers. We might be able to help
with NearMap imagery, or it might just be useful to get OSM in front
of people who may not heard of it.
Lots of natural=tree tagging!
- David
-- Forwarded message --
From: Hugh Barnes
Date: 19 July 2010 15:55
On 17 July 2010 13:02, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I've also been finding the opposite. It's almost impossible to follow
> a signposted walking track from Nearmap. Even when you have a fair
> idea where the track goes, there are all kinds of red herrings that
> look just as visible from the air. Not t
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
> I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It
> took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted
> CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt
> within a week from new data with community ass
On 18 July 2010 23:29, Ken Bosward wrote:
> I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra?
Does it need to be fixed, or does pre-processing software need to be fixed?
> Should it be the case that the coastline tag should only be on the actual
> coast (and should also be used to close off the inlet)
I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.5213&lon=150.8437&zoom=13
This does not render as blue water in the OSM Australia maps when
viewed in MapSource or my Garmin GPS. I suspect this is because the
inlet is not closed off; also the northern side of
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater wrote:
> On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith wrote:
>> I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
>> data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
>> than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, th
Where do we vote against the ODBL?
Im sure not going to start again.
Markus.
-Original Message-
From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith
Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 9:06 PM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au
On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith wrote:
> I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
> data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
> than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
> Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top
On 18 July 2010 22:10, Grant Slater wrote:
> On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith wrote:
>> It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
>> from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
>> new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriv
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith wrote:
> It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
> from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
> new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
> data from Nearmap.
>
Why?
Are their new cr
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
data from Nearmap.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going
bye bye, all the Nearm
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Ben Kelley wrote:
> > That said, having had a look at the new coverage in the Hunter Valley, there
> > is a huge amount of detail you can get from Nearmap that would be
> > practically impossible with surve
13 matches
Mail list logo
