On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Address range information can be derived from existing TIGER data quite
simply.
I'm not sure how simple it is. It's simple in cases where TIGER data
matches up very closely with OSM data. But that isn't universally
true. And
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
This idea, of tagging address ranges within blocks, sounds like a good idea
to me. Some cities, such as Louisville, KY, put address ranges on street
signs, which would make gathering such information easy in those
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
I'm all for not importing data where there's existing data people can
use, but in the case of TIGER addresses you could actually make a
point for importing: OSM could be a platform for improving that
address data (like it
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Which brings me to the conclusion that there's no point in importing
TIGER address information. A geocoder can simply try to find the
address in OSM
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
Do you realize:
1. We already have a method for address interpolation. It's called
addr:interpolation
There's no need for new tags.
Yes. In fact, I mentioned it above along with a link
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's reasonable to take a small bite out of that huge task by using
data that was previously crowdsourced (via taxpayer money) and ask as many
members of the current OSM community in the US to manually add the data and
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:
On 11/2/2011 9:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
2. Cutting ways into blocks would make for bedlam.
Why?
If there's no difference between the blocks except for addressing
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 10/23/11 3:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 10/23/2011 2:59 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
from Mike's comment, the name appears to likely be correct local usage.
Mike's link is from Wisconsin; the way is in
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Can someone check TIGER 2010 to see what it currently says?
I just did. It's TLID 611694054. The name has been removed.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 10/22/11 8:33 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
This is something that I've been wondering in ma, would on road sign
posted routes (there is a sign on a post next to the road) be tagged
differently the on road
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
this text may be found in section 1234 on this page:
https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/local-programs-bureau/repository/bicycle/safety-and-laws/laws.html
Hmm, I just looked at the text. Did you
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/2011 9:13 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
if there's just a black on yellow sign saying share the road then
cyclists
should stay to the right.
Not at all.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
not intentionally, and i did include the link so people could read it, so
perhaps we could drop the confrontational bit.
Sorry.
you will note that i didn't
come back at you about the fact that there are no specs
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Anthony o...@inbox.org [2011-10-07 16:36 -0400]:
access=private is wrong if it is not private property.
I understand access=private to mean, You cannot go here without express
permission from the property owner. The land
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 08:44:04 -0400, Anthony wrote:
By that rationale, all government owned land is access=private.
No. In a park, for example, you have a right of access by default.
I'm not sure what you mean
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:40 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
The access=emergency tag is documented in the wiki as meaning that access is
permitted for emergency vehicles, and would seem to ideally fit this
situation.
Where is it in the wiki? I did a search for emergency, and
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:40 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com
wrote:
The access=emergency tag is documented in the wiki as meaning that
access is permitted for emergency vehicles
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com [2011-10-07 06:51 -0500]:
James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey guys, I'm curious, but how have you guys been tagging them when
you add them?
Define what you mean by an
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com [2011-10-07 06:51 -0500]:
James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey guys, I'm curious, but how have you guys been
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 09/30/2011 08:36 PM, Mike N wrote:
Really? Are there people who say I'd rather not map because there is no
consensus on the roads tagging? Are those people the 20,000 missing
mappers in the US?
It is more
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
So we could take the existing tags, where =customer is perhasp not
existing, and have a hierarchy:
access=yes
access=destination
access=permissive (no legal right, but not objected to)
*access=customers
access=private (no
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
As I've said on the wiki, I'd rather see
access=restricted plus access:restriction=customers_only, this way we
can give routers general information (that the way is restricted to a
particular category) without having them
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
The US doesn't seem to have the strict legal categories for rights-of-way
that the UK does
I'm not sure what you mean by that, as I'm not familiar with UK law.
But the US definitely has a concept of public right of way vs.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote:
So this could be access=destination , which should allow routing at ends but
not for thru traffic.
Well, that's not at all what the sign says.
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/15/2011 9:50 AM, Anthony wrote:
The sign does not say you may use the road so long as you need it to
get to your destination (access=destination). That would preclude
cast members as using it as a cut-through
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/12/2011 7:17 PM, Anthony wrote:
The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude
the fact that they have granted a right of way through it.
According to Orange County property records
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote:
The thru-roads across WDW property might or might not be registered as
Public Right of Way against the deeds, but have been open to the public for
up to 40 years.
What is the goal here ?
We're trying to figure out
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote:
Waste/Submerged would be correct status in 1960 prior to Disney
development, not current status. Sounds like that website is not current
source for Reedy Creek documents.
By the way, the particular parcel of land being
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a guard booth on Vista Boulevard near the present
location of the sign until about 2005.
And now I get it. This road could be used to bypass the main entrance
toll booth on World Drive, and doesn't seem to
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/2011 6:12 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
(As opposed to
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
Re: Kansas
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of
the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the
driver of a vehicle ...
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote:
The no thru traffic sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction
specific. In general there is no letter of the law, as the law
generally does not mention such signs.
You seem
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
(As opposed to
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t=mz=16vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.394524,-81.549396panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRgcbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19
which is on private
Is it just me or does the thread Roundabouts and routing
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-September/060082.html)
reflect a dysfunctional community?
I'm not talking about the question. I'm talking about the responses.
___
talk
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is it just me or does the thread Roundabouts and routing
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-September/060082.html)
reflect a dysfunctional community
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:47:37 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Is it just me or does the thread Roundabouts
just me, feel free to ignore this.
Kenneth, can you elaborate on your post? What in my post is typical of a troll?
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Kay Drangmeister k...@drangmeister.net wrote:
Am 09.09.2011, 13:31 Uhr, schrieb Anthony o...@inbox.org:
Is it just me or does the thread Roundabouts
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2011, Anthony wrote:
Is it just me
Yes.
or does the thread Roundabouts and routing
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-September/060082.html)
reflect a dysfunctional community
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote:
Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as
access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private.
I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all,
unless there
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote:
Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as
access=destination or access
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser
stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as
access=destination
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 00:02 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org
wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:19 PM, PJ Houser
stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote:
In Portland, Oregon, we have been tagging certain ways with access
restrictions as access=no and then explicit exceptions, like psv=yes,
foot=yes, bicycle=yes.
Yes, this is correct.
Here's an example of our work
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst writes:
[follow-ups should be to legal-talk yadda yadda]
Russ Nelson wrote:
What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is
in the public domain?
See
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:34 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 September 2011 19:12, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
It is clearly the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do to simply
accept the CTs.
Hardly, the easier, pragmatic and sensible thing to do is just use
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote:
When I have a v1 object that is non-CT compliant, then we have to assume the
further revisions may be derivatives.
Why do we have to assume this?
If CT-agreed mappers have added tags
from a survey in later revisions,
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:14 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Furthermore, the goal is not to have a CT-clean database. You already
have a CT-clean database. The goal, apparently, is to have an
ODbL-clean database.
I think you
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 August 2011 16:41, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Surveying
suburban streets by GPS these days makes about as much sense as using
a horse and cart on a freeway...
This tracing vs survey argument is as
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
What about the people who didn't agree to the CT, but whose data is in
the public domain?
Isn't all data in the public domain?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Given that LWG doesn't appear to be changing its IMO daft stance that a
user placing their data in the public domain is not good enough for us, I
am seriously tempted to delete and reimport TimSC's data[1] under my
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
+1. While I'd rather see these objects go away altogether, I think a
tag of name=Melbourne;Geelong;South-Central NSW Area;Central Victoria
Area
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Sounds good. I don't think storing these in OSM, with the
non-overlapping tags, is harmful. While I'd love to see them in a
separate database or at least a separate layer, the fact of the matter
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Ian Sergeant iserg...@hih.com.au wrote:
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote on 30/08/2011 11:14:32 AM:
The same mechanism is used for Yahoo, Bing etc coverage. Yes, it's
debatable whether meta-objects should be stored in the OSM database,
but that debate
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 08/26/11 07:07, Mike Dupont wrote:
If you want to sponsor me a membership than I am willing to speak.
I don't think it would be received well if either an existing board member
or the OSMF as a whole were to
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:08 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official
Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a
requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:32 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of whether the data protection act was relevant, we acted on the
side of caution.
I wouldn't characterize withholding relevant public information from
the public as acting on the side of caution.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
But board members don't have to act within the best
interest of OSMF as a whole every time they give a gift to anyone!
Anthony, can you expand on this, or was it a typo?
I
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
But board members don't have to act within the best
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
yes, this clarifies the gift, but still I think that board members
indeed do have to act within the best interest of OSMF and OSM as a
whole (whatever this is, asuming good
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
a board member, and are not allowed to *use, for personal purposes,
confidential
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
absurd.
Really, I'm not sure how you can even make that claim, unless you
haven't thought about what it means. When a board member eats dinner,
should the board member
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/8/26 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
As for the obligations of board members, while they are generally not
allowed to act in a way which harms the organization of which they are
a board member, and are not allowed
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
joined the OSMF? That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The organization has gone downhill
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
The experience on Wikipedia is that reverting a changeset is a pretty
offensive action to take, requiring great care.
Really? Whatever happened to Bold, Revert, Discuss? In my
experience a revert of a bad edit is a
I thought we were supposed to only be talking about this stuff on legal-talk.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Dear All,
The License Working Group takes the position that it is now
appropriate to begin reconciling the data touched by users who have
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:15 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/13 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
On 11/07/2011 22:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I just stumbled across a changeset where someone helpfully added a
toilet:access=customers to 1350 pubs in the Greeater
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:21 AM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
My 2p would try and persuade more people to use source tags (and tag:source
tags) so that it's easier to work out where stuff has actually come from.
In this case, I'd say 1) try to get in touch with the mapper to
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
There's no point in getting other people involved unless there's some
sort of dispute
Correction: A note to one of the lists (or in some other public
forum), saying that you reverted what you reverted and why, wouldn't
be harmful
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 07/13/11 09:37, Maarten Deen wrote:
But you're still only voting for the comment in the changeset, right?
No, I was thinking that people should vote up/down what was *done* in the
changeset.
-1
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Shalabh shalab...@gmail.com wrote:
And to echo Steve Bennet's comment, I am at a loss to find anything bad
enough said by any Richard to justify this rant.
I'm guessing it has to do
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 11/07/2011 22:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
I just stumbled across a changeset where someone helpfully added a
toilet:access=customers to 1350 pubs in the Greeater London area (thereby
adding no information but
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
I hadn't really thought about the pseudonym thing until a while ago when
someone sent around the 'poisonous people' talk video done I think at
google. One of their very first points is to note that trolls usually use
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
We can block the 'main' people. Then you have to draw the line somewhere
between the good
and the bad anonymous posters. I would suggest anyone who's posted that they
want to disrupt
the project and anyone operating
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
You're both a whole continent and
an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM for
Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two into
one dataset.
CC-BY-SA doesn't
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, James Livingston
li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote:
Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD
so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets...
Because they were mixing the datasets. If
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
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
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
David Groom wrote:
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database
in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote:
Are you
Anyway, I think what Richard is trying to say is this:
1) Create osm-without-australia.osm by removing australia from the
OSMF database.
2) Create fosm-australia-only.osm by removing everything but australia
from the FOSM database (for both of these extracts, use a boundary
definition that's PD.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
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 Database or Work.
Depends on how you combine them. If you just put the files next to
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
wrote:
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 Database or Work
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org
How long do I have to keep a copy of the adapted database in case
someone takes me up on my offer? How much of the database do I need
to keep? Is the offer
Ack. Sorry. I was asked not to post this on the talk list and I
didn't realize until after I sent it where it was going.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
- Original Message - From
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate
aren't ever going to be reconciled.
[snip]
So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad thing.
It isn't. There are
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
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
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I've come across a fair number of what I call obvious turn restrictions.
Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1566983
The only thing being prevented by this is turning right onto Shelbyville
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a better example of the problem:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1591319/history
North Elk Vale has been split into three ways with four relations on each
side of the overpass. And for what? To
This is an except from a message I sent to Steve. But hopefully
someone can answer these questions for me (and for everyone who wants
to comply with the ODbL):
If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works
produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com writes:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1591319/history
North Elk Vale has been split into three ways with four relations on
each side of the overpass. And for what? To prevent a
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
Lets say you make a map and someone wants the data.
First, are you acting in the spirit of the license? Let's assume yes. That
gets you 99% of the way there, despite your technical detail analysis.
I'm not really sure what
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Adding a question, because your point about storage brings up a
potential semi-solution: What if I just store every database I ever
use on a hard drive, and if someone asks for a copy I send them, for
the cost of a hard drive plus
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com 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
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com 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
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com 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
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com 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.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com 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.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM, James Andrewartha
tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote:
On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com 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
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even
those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to
map
On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
And
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
*: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a
restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause.
The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts
101 - 200 of 1311 matches
Mail list logo
