Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data re-visited

On 6/26/2016 10:11 AM, cleary wrote: Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand. Can I now follow-on and request clarification about other data from data.gov.au - for example the sources listed in the wiki for Queensland Local Government Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality

Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data re-visited

Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand. Can I now follow-on and request clarification about other data from data.gov.au - for example the sources listed in the wiki for Queensland Local Government Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality Boundaries which are CC-BY- 4.0 but do

Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data re-visited

The simple answer is "NO", the G-NAF data is published under a non-open custom licence and currently can not be used directly in OSM. Every communication we've had with the relevant authorities has indicated that they are at this time not moving away from the non-open licence. This may change in

Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data re-visited

Hmmm, If I just delivered mail to particular addresses (as I did to 150 today, have a list of addresses) does that mean that these addresses are now able to be imported from the GNAF? Maybe I need to tag them as note:letterbox verified or note:GNAF import ok? I’m not being flippant, and I

Re: [talk-au] GNAF (address) data re-visited

On 25 June 2016 at 13:35, cleary wrote: > I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six months > ago but I remain uncertain about the implications. > > As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF > (address) data from data.gov.au is not

Re: [talk-au] Possible illegal imports in Western Australia

Ok this should be all reverted now. On 25 June 2016 at 09:12, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Ok, reverting the FIX SOURCES changesets in progress, it could take a while > to finish, it's been running overnight and still going. > > 40207793 > 40207001 > 40206754 > 40206373 >