a
well-recognised definition of "free and open license" (with respect to
data) existing somewhere else (like the FSD & OSD do in the software
domain).
Can anyone point me to such a definition?
Regards,
Jack Burton
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 13:39 +, John Smith wrote:
> This case is an exception since there is a place=* node for Perth which
> is marked as a capital city, does anyone know 2 towns or villiages or
> ... with the same names in different states? or even same state I
> guess...
Same state cases:
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 23:37 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Apart from Victoria and Albert does anyone know of an example
> where
>
> A Husband and Wife have both had roads named after them and that these
> roads intersect.
At the risk of seeming obvious, a more modern example: Elizabeth Way &
issue seems to be a bug in the validator and/or
in gosmore, rather than any deficiency in the method most mappers are
using to map un-named ways (although of course, as Darrin pointed out,
those roundabouts [or link roads] that _do_ have names in the real world
should of c
Sorry - forgot to CC the below to the list:
Forwarded Message
From: Jack Burton
To: BlueMM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Suburb boundaries - getting close
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:04:16 +1030
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:41 +, BlueMM wrote:
> Assuming we go with the relati
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:09 +1100, Franc Carter wrote:
> Ok, it seems my conversion script is now producing sane results so
> it's time
> to work out what the final output should look like.
>
> The first question that I think we need to answer is, how do we
> represent the
> data in OSM, there app
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 21:16 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> Futher to this I was looking back through this thread (thinking maybe
> about having a look at the data myself) and I James said:
>
> It's described as "These boundaries have been based upon localities
> gazetted by the Geographic Place name
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 17:04 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:29:39 +1030
> Jack Burton wrote:
>
> > >1. What way do we want to represent the data, e.g closed ways or
> > > relations consisting of borders - something else ?
> >
> >
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:26 +1100, Franc Carter wrote:
> I just had a conversation with a really helpful person at the ABS.
>
> She indicated that the ABS is taking a view of the data that is very
> similar/compatible with (at least my understanding) the view that
> OpenStreetMap is taking towards
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 16:23 +1100, Patrick Jordan wrote:
> This is fairly definitive:
>
> http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/G090.pdf/view?searchterm=maps
> maps remain in copyright until 70 years after the creator's death.
Umm, doesn't that mean that the 1940 vintage street di
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 17:06 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> [On the single area option]
>
> > Personally I think that is still the best approach (the only downside
> > I can see with it would be if a suburb was not defined by a closed
> > area - although I'd imagine that would be quite rare). However
houses or businesses close enough to the
estimated boundary to be authoritative is a bit more problematic - I
haven't come up with a good method yet; perhaps someone else on the list
can suggest one? (the Government - including Aussie Post - published
data all appears to be encumbered).
Regards,
Jack Burton
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 21:28 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> Trying to work out the tags to apply to the "Greenfield Wetlands" near
> Salisbury. It's a wetland area but as I understand the natural=wetland
> tag that's more to define the borders of the actual wetland area rather
> than the border of the
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 19:46 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> Rest assured I won't change any existing definitions from now on until
> we sort this out.
Okay, me neither (excepting any _links that don't match their associated
way type, as you pointed out in the other thread).
> > > I propose that all
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 17:34 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> I didn't do it completely off the top of my head, I did think "I wonder
> if secondary_link and tertiary_link will work?" so I threw in a couple
> of them, waited for information freeway to update, saw secondary_link
> DID work and tertiary_l
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 11:47 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> OK, to take this a step further I'll start the ball rolling in Adelaide:
> (As we get a consensus I'll write a Adelaide/South Australia Wiki page
> to reflect the decisions, I'm happy to do that)
To date, I've been following the guidelines o
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 09:28 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> Futher on this, is you are going to correct them, please check the
> roads you are connecting them to.
>
> I'm seeing examples of valid primary & trunk links being turned into
> secondaries and cases of primary cross-link's where I (have now
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:55 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> I can tell you jack that they are 2-way roads, since I'm the one who's
> put them in there.
Ok, good. That's what I thought.
> Let me explain the reasoning behind my use of those tags (which upon
> reflection and the comment by Stuart earli
On Sun, 2008-03-09 at 18:37 +1100, Stuart Robinson wrote:
> Links are by default oneway, I think that's what the other person is
> getting at.
Ah, I didn't realise that. I don't think most of the ways in question
should be oneway, i.e. they allow both turning right from the (dual
carriageway) seco
Hello all.
A few days ago, I noticed a fair number of small ways in Adelaide's
suburbs tagged as highway=secondary_link.
There's no reference to secondary_link in Map Features, Australian Roads
Tagging, or in any proposed feature on the wiki.
So I assumed this was just an error, and changed them
20 matches
Mail list logo
