On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 17:29 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> But maybe I misunderstood the target of the email. I guess there are
> three possible outcomes of the licence debate:
> 1) The CTs get sorted out so that NearMap etc are happy with them, and
> OSM switches to ODbL. However, some people refu
On 22/11/10 15:37, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
> The attributions are Google for USA, Sensis for Australia and Tele
> Atlas for Europe etc. after this update:
> http://google-au.blogspot.com/2010/11/your-new-map-of-australia.html
> So no MapQuest worries!
>
My personal experience has been Google
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> For most people involved in OSM it is an enjoyable hobby, and that is why
> they do it. Data comes and goes, and I can't expect the data I enter to
> live for time immemorial. Of all the areas of that I mapped back in 2007,
> very few of the
On 22 November 2010 11:31, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> It is hard to believe that those red cities and towns are created entirely
> from data that can't be relicenced.
Take me as an example. I don't care what licence we use - as far as
I'm concerned all my work can be PD. If people want to take thing
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:18 PM, David Murn wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:13 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
>> I would think the better solution is to have the attribution simplified
>> like Google Maps does. eg. Google Maps for canberra says "Copyright
>> PSMA, MapQuest" etc.
>
> Hang o
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 17:35 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:59:42 -0800 (PST)
> Neil Penman wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't this problem be easier to manage if each CC-BY data source
> > was kept in separate data store which is combined as a layer on the
> > client or tile server?
The question I would ask is 'Is the world a better or worse place if Google
uses our data'? I would say on the whole it is.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:18 PM, David Murn wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:13 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
> > I would think the better solution is to have the
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:13 +1100, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote:
> I would think the better solution is to have the attribution simplified
> like Google Maps does. eg. Google Maps for canberra says "Copyright
> PSMA, MapQuest" etc.
Hang on a second... you mean you goto google maps, and some of th
I didn't see any intention to provoke in Nick's email just a statement of fact.
No one would dispute that Liz has done some great mapping over the years and
it
would be fantastic if she kept her data in OSM. But if she and others are
determined to pull their data out then I agree with Nick t
On 22/11/10 11:49, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:
>> Certainly, it unfortunately appears that there will be whole villages/towns
>> that will remain red. These will need to be resurveyed. I believe that this
>> will take about one year (or maybe two at
On 21 November 2010 13:18, Andrew Laughton wrote:
> In my opinion OSM will never recover to the same point that it is at today
> if data is removed for the simple reason that most, if not all government
> data will need to be removed, and there is no way that private mappers can
> replace this as
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Certainly, it unfortunately appears that there will be whole villages/towns
> that will remain red. These will need to be resurveyed. I believe that this
> will take about one year (or maybe two at the most) but considereing OSM's
> huge impo
12 matches
Mail list logo
