Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 9 July 2011 02:10, Steve Coast wrote: > Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes because most of the community I'm > familiar with, which is all of the EU and the US, consider government data a > nice starting point but mappers on the ground as generally much better. Is > the perception in Austr

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 18:08, SteveC wrote: > On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:57, Sam Couter wrote: > >> Steve Coast wrote: >>> >>> We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting >>> clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm >>> aware there are no rem

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Sorry for the way he is treating you Liz. Liz is like the grandma of osm. She has been a tireless supporter, She spent months helping in OSM kosovo and flossk. She dontated laptops, gps devices and lots of love. I dont know if you follow that at all steve, but I am shocked how you are speaking to h

[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Matt wrote "But the problem is I've become disillusioned - the fun and community has gone." Matt, Once the licence change is complete I think the community will slowly grow back, both with some old timers and then with new mappers as well. Till then we will continue to see the same old disrup

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

A whole lot of angst I don't often email the list, but I've been kicking around OSM for maybe four years, and done a bit of mapping here and there, as well as generating the odd Garmin map for people to use. This email is a bit rambly, so I apologise in advance. To be honest, I'm over it.

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Hello, Firstly let me say that I have no alliances with either side of the debate. I have been trying to sit on the fence throughout the entire process. Until the recent Nearmap announcement I was unable to legally accept the change; Now I can. I agree with those who state that the license cha

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast wrote: > Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes because most of the community I'm > familiar with, which is all of the EU and the US, consider government data a > nice starting point but mappers on the ground as generally much better. Is the > perception in Australia that you should j

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast wrote: > Well the eternal right thing applies to CC and most other licenses, so I There's a difference between an irrevocable licence and an irrevocable, all-encompassing rights grant. CC and most other open licences are the former, OSM's CTs require the latter. > suspect that you do

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/8/2011 2:01 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:28 -0700 Steve Coast wrote: If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned or moderated. big snip of trash I've known them

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:28 -0700 Steve Coast wrote: > If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people > who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been > banned or moderated. > big snip of trash > > I've known them for a lot longer than you have it s

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast wrote: >> At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for >> example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on. > > If the only way you are willing to have a mutually

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > Anthony > > The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming > and trolling. I'm not FOSM, so that's rather irrelevant, even if it were true. I also thought that relationship had been mended, as the previous conversati

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Anthony The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming and trolling. You were kicked from the legal list, the only person I'm aware of to have managed that. I suspect the real reason you want a nice relationship is funding and other benefits we've worked hard for,

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/8/2011 4:28 AM, Sam Couter wrote: Also, your frame of reference is with OSM up and running and having these kinds of relationships. When I started OSM we had no data at all and nobody wanted to give us data under any license, let alone cc. So those of us who climbed the mountain to get

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/8/2011 5:04 AM, Sam Couter wrote: SteveC wrote: No, John smith and friends are a separate issue, they troll many different discussions. Who are "and friends"? I only watch talk-au so if there's trolling going on elsewhere I haven't seen it. What I have seen is you dismissing others as

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coast wrote: > I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because > one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is, > that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make > everyone happy. We

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

ednesday, 6 July 2011 9:30 PM > To: OSM Australian Talk List > Subject: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of > CT/license > changes > > > > Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all > new contributors from usi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

SteveC wrote: > No, John smith and friends are a separate issue, they troll many different > discussions. Who are "and friends"? I only watch talk-au so if there's trolling going on elsewhere I haven't seen it. What I have seen is you dismissing others as being deliberately disruptive or as havi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

SteveC wrote: > I wouldn't say we chose it. We were told by legal that cc didn't work, so we > spent a lot of time evolving the odbl (originally started by cc folks) and > the CTs. It might look from that side of the planet that it was a hand of god > type decision, but that's not the case. It'

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

ically) in the garage in 20 years like my model trains have been. Mark (aka NilbogAus) From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 9:30 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes Since the

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:10, Sam Couter wrote: > SteveC wrote: >> Sam >> >> Underlaying your attacks is the notion that I dismiss people who disagree >> with me, or that I can't understand different points of view. I find that >> strange given my rational responses to several disagreements on thi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

SteveC wrote: > Sam > > Underlaying your attacks is the notion that I dismiss people who disagree > with me, or that I can't understand different points of view. I find that > strange given my rational responses to several disagreements on this list and > outlaying where I feel misunderstandin

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:57, Sam Couter wrote: > Steve Coast wrote: >> >> We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting >> clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm >> aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'acc

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast wrote: > > We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting > clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm > aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. The solution to the problem of "We chose a l

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Sam Underlaying your attacks is the notion that I dismiss people who disagree with me, or that I can't understand different points of view. I find that strange given my rational responses to several disagreements on this list and outlaying where I feel misunderstandings have come from. I have a

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast wrote: [ rubbish about Australians being led astray by some guy] > It's hard to fix that, however I am resourceful. You're an immature brat who thinks shouting loudest and longest means you win the argument. That's not resourcefulness. It's impossible to carry on any kind of ration

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Good to hear there is aerial now in your area, I hope you will continue to improve the map. Personally I've been adding lots of housenumbers lately. I find it weird that it's not as boring as I think it should be. Steve On 7/7/2011 11:13 PM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: At the time that I st

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/7/2011 9:37 PM, James Andrewartha wrote: On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC wrote: This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because o

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

At the time that I stopped, that's right, there was no other aerial imagery. I just checked again now and Bing actually seems pretty ok... Maybe I'll start again sometime...but honestly, I'm not really in the mood lately. Maybe after a steak dinner or two... :P On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Stev

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM, James Andrewartha wrote: > On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC wrote: >> This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's >> not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where >> we are at and now it's down to people

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC wrote: > This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's > not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where > we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the > wrong place or a moral

[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Nathan "I've been mapping farm fences etc in the Yass, NSW area, where the Bing resolution is high enough to do so" Hi Nathan, Do you live near Yass? If so can you throw any light on the two or three streets that don't have street signs on them? I've tried many times to find names for the road

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC wrote: > As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically > elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get > involved or run for election. Is it true that you had to do a lot of rule fiddling so you didn't have

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC wrote: > Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so > it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else > (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's > hard to say near map have b

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

The control seems to be good, but I have no personal say in it. The new license maybe good, but I dont want to accept it if I dont understand it 100%. With the new distributed system we are building I can : 1. Host my own maps without begging or asking for permissions. 2. Commit my own code to my

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not qui

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM, SteveC wrote: > I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to > become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. > That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for > data. Lawyers also

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 13:54, SteveC wrote: > I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to > become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. It's a false assumption, the only way it would be geo factual data is if you copied 1:1 from raster imagery,

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Jul 7, 2011, at 18:39, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey > wrote: >> Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all >> new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no >> longer actively contributing t

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

What you say mike is mostly reasonable apart from the control bit. It's a democratically elected nonprofit, so it's hard to cast that as a dictatorship. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:47, Mike Dupont wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham wrote: > Personally

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for data. If they didn't say that then we would never have gone down this roa

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham wrote: > Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and > this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the > projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting > match where the 'political' goa

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC wrote: > The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at >From what I've read on ML posts, and from what was reported about the last SotM meeting (I wasn't there), the vast majority of people don't care and would be happy with the status quo, would be hap

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM, SteveC wrote: > I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who > doesn't like his > countries laws. There are more countries without sui generis database rights laws than with it. ___ Talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC wrote: > The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at What about the 50 odd percent of people that haven't responded? > I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who > doesn't like his countries laws. So you're planning to h

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 6 July 2011 21:29, Andrew Harvey wrote: > and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in > the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in > the future. > Indeed. Number 9 on the list is "QldProtectedAreas

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast wrote: > On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast wrote: >> >> You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the >> community, Australia being a good example ... > > Steve, please don't unde

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all > new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no > longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively > contributi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

I wonder if people would mind keeping their unconstructive comments for some other medium than this list. On Jul 8, 2011 9:24 AM, "David Murn" wrote: > Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand > very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudenes

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of > CT/license changes > > On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson wrote: > > What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see > > a map > > when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:11 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: > Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other > than nearmap? Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someon

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson wrote: > What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map > when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on "Maps" and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Altho

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 08/07/11 00:01, 80n wrote: The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to wid

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast wrote: > We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting > clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm > aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. He said he wanted to keep

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast > wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or w

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7 July 2011 15:09, Steve Coast wrote: > FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. > > The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when > OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from > aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait > for them to catch up) > Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been "perverted"

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast > wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the abi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > > You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the > community, Australia being a good example ... > Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of "Australia" to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute wi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/7/2011 7:15 AM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast > wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. > > The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when > OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from > aerial imagery. I could go on, but th

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work > there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from > merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual > merges of OSM

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Thanks for the responses. So it seems there will be some fragmentation. Some are moving to fosm, some are moving elsewhere, some are staying with OSM, some have stopped actively contributing and are on hold... I wrote this mail for two reasons, to get a sense of where local contributors stand, but

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast wrote: > > Wow, you infer a lot from my four word sentence. Do you have any > evidence to back any of it up? You mean other than the message you affirmed pretty strongly? Maybe it's a difference between Australian English and British English, but I'd think those four words in the co

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

As others have said.. 1) Ive moved to fosm since the lockout 2) Im feeling pretty disillusioned at the whole thing, and seriously wonder if its not worth just paying 5 bucks for a map that I cannot share, rather than deal with the politics of a staggered mapping project 3) Ive made a couple of e

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey >>  wrote: >> I have concerns.  The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open >> source project: >> >> http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project >> and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to o

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7/6/2011 3:20 PM, Sam Couter wrote: Steve Coast wrote: This is exactly right. It's only exactly right if you don't have a problem with the new licence, with the process by which it was implemented, with mass deletion of data, with the proliferation of incompatible open licences, with irre

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast wrote: > This is exactly right. It's only exactly right if you don't have a problem with the new licence, with the process by which it was implemented, with mass deletion of data, with the proliferation of incompatible open licences, with irrevocable and eternal rights grants, with fu

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley wrote: > How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings > of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this > happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a Actually it's potentially trivial

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 06/07/2011, at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordi

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On 6 July 2011 22:35, Chris Barham wrote: > I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out > and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with > agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing > off to fork. That energy could have been us

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

This is exactly right. On 7/6/2011 5:35 AM, Chris Barham wrote: Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey wrote: Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns ove

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to > merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have > any concerns over the switch? I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reas

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you > efforts on hold at the moment. > My efforts are on hold at the moment. Still disillusioned... ___ Talk-au mailing list T

Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all > new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no > longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively > contributi

[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively contributing to the fosm database. I am interested to hear what other ac