On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view.
You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point
out that I disagree with all the force I can muster.
I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed
David Murn wrote:
the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to
address the problematic terms and simply tell people the
decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion.
Hardly the way to run an open community project.
I realise the phrase assume good faith is
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those
providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app
(Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet
dump of OSM as well.
They don't have to.
ODbL 4.6b: You must also offer
Luke W. (lakeyboy) wrote:
Is there already a usable URL out there that can
be put into Potlatch 2 or other editors?
You could in theory use Bing right now in Potlatch 2 if you run your own
instance, but although the code's been written, none of the public instances
(Geowiki, MapQuest, or even
Steve Bennett wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan.
Hear, hear.
The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is:
OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's
elections will take place at the start of July as
Sam Vekemans wrote:
It's a good think that potlatch2 doesn't restrict APIs :)
[...]
Oops, I mean restrict Imagery URLs.
... sorry got carried away on the last message :)
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
If you wade through the whole conversation on the josm-dev mailing
list you would be aware
that
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which
licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will
not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project.
Fair enough.
As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only.
Guess that's you
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at
any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to
ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have.
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%
You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate,
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major
John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?
But my comment before sets the
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
(4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
data licensing, but it's likely that
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote:
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective
Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL
and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part
of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an
David Groom wrote:
Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these
are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued.
No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work
(CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective
David Groom wrote:
Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a
derivative database
Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a
Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of
ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for
Andrew Laughton wrote:
Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes
OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.
Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ?
Yes.
The summary (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/) says:
[crosspost removed]
80n wrote:
Most importantly it allows subsequent copies of the produced work to be
made with no attribution.
No, it doesn't. An attribution statement without a downstream requirement
is not reasonably calculated. This has been gone over ad nauseam in
legal-talk.
Richard
Warin wrote:
> I expand these out to Saint. I think that is correct in the English
> language.
It is expressly _incorrect_ in British English and if this were a UK
discussion you would be asked to put them back to St. I can't speak for
Australian English but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the
This is getting ridiculous.
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Tom Brennan wrote:
> However, if I go over to Cammeray, someone has added all of the ways
> to a single relation (named Cammeray Local Routes, tagged with
> lcn=yes and network=lcn).
Yeah, please don't do that. :)
Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. Not
for
On 25 Apr 2020, 09:53 +0100, Andrew Harvey , wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 18:49, Richard Fairhurst
> > wrote:
> > > Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end.
> > > Not
> > > for networks. If you want to
Andrew Harvey , wrote:
> For these "routes" though there is no clear A to B, there will be short
> segments which are obivously part of a route because there are arrows
> directing cyclists, but sometimes these are just short segments to the next
> intersection so it's unclear where the route
Hi folks,
There appear to be a _lot_ of bogus rail stations on the map in Queensland:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-21.0650/148.8397=T
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-23.5706/150.1838=T
I think these are historic halts that haven't had service for many years but
have mistakenly
Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether
> that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from
> the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags.
With the best will in the world, that's not going to happen.
I can
26 matches
Mail list logo
