I tend to be very conservative, there shouldn't be any problems but some
data I have a verbal OK for CC-by-SA but CC-by-ODBL was not understood.
Cheerio John
On 8 June 2011 11:49, Gordon Dewis wrote:
> No problem... I don't have any qualms about the data vis-a-vis the various
> licensing agreem
No problem... I don't have any qualms about the data vis-a-vis the various
licensing agreements. If there are any problems for the features in question
I'll step forward.
Incidentally, if anyone's feeling particularly grateful, I'm steering a team
in the Ottawa Dragonboat Festival in just over a w
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Gordon Dewis wrote:
> And it is done.
Thank you, Gordon.
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Keeper%20of%20Maps/edits)
Now to bed...
--G
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Gordon Dewis wrote:
> I will do that this evening.
>
> --G
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Crowe
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:03:41
> To:
> Subject: Re: [T
d with
> you in any way.
> --
> *From: * john whelan
> *Date: *Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:32:11 -0400
> *To: *
> *Cc: *Samuel Longiaru;
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
>
> > some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them.
>
> Bu
I am surprised that you removed a feature that was 100% not connected with you
in any way.
-Original Message-
From: john whelan
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:32:11
To:
Cc: Samuel Longiaru;
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
> some of them only list him in the history when he dele
looked at some of the features
> deleted and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them.
> -Original Message-
> From: Samuel Longiaru
> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
>
>
stream is bound to cause some issues many of
> which will be totally unforeseen. There has to some kind of reasonable
> solution here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> *From*: john whelan
>
> >
> *To*: Richard Weait
&
The reverting has already begun. I have looked at some of the features deleted
and some of them only list him in the history when he deleted them.
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Longiaru
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:34:44
To:
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan
ion here.
Thanks,
Sam
-Original Message-
From: john whelan
To: Richard Weait
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400
To recap:
The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for
the database. This p
> In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I
> don't have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL. At the time it
> was done my expectation was that this information would become
> available under CC-by-SA in the short term this has not happened.
>
> I have included info
To recap:
The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for the
database. This position can be undermined if any included data has not been
directly created by a mapper in the field.
In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I don't
have the rights
OK curiosity is getting the better of me. What's the issue? Why the
sudden panic attack to remove data? (I must probably missed that part :)
What's wrong with CT/ODbL?
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan
> wrote:
> > I would b
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote:
> I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed.
Earlier you said that you were happy to have your surveyed data
included in OSM under CT/ODbL, but you wanted Canvec data you uploaded
removed.
Now you say, "I would be extremely happy t
On 11-06-07 06:31 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote:
I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed.
So you are happy to be known as a vandal, in order to ... Why? That seems odd.
He wants his data removed, and he doesn't care how. It's clear
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Earlier, Jonathan Crowe said, but JW messed up the attribution:
> > Treat his edits as vandalism and proceed accordingly.
> I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed.
So you are happy to be known as a vandal, in order to ... Why
Treat his edits as vandalism and proceed accordingly.
"Virtual ban
When a contributor is subject to a 'virtual ban' (see notes above) then all
their past work may be removed and all new work will be reverted without
review until they possibly contact the Data Working Group and request a
review of
I will do that this evening.
--G
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Crowe
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:03:41
To:
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to
a thing we've said. He's just justifying and ra
John is missing the point, perhaps deliberately. He hasn't listened to
a thing we've said. He's just justifying and rationalizing his
original decision.
There's no point in discussing this any further. He doesn't get it and
he never will. We're wasting time here. Treat his edits as vandalism
and p
If the data had been left tagged as not CT then OSM would have deleted it in
2012. The only difference would be that any edits you made from now to then
would also be deleted. Your concerns should be brought to OSM's attention.
If they have a way of deleting my edits that doesn't impact your work
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, john whelan wrote:
> According to the new CT terms OSM can change the license to anything.
Dear John,
Your interpretation of the contributor terms is incorrect. See §3
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
"... or such other free and open
Well, not sure what to say, John. You've deleted stuff that I've worked on
without my consent, so there's a problem. If the features you had deleted
were still v1 that you had added, I could see an argument in support of what
you've done, but many of the features appear to be >v1 with more than jus
No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem arose
when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data.
Cheerio John
On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis wrote:
> "What should John do?"
>
> John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added
Revert, revert, revert.
You can't decide, once the house is built, that you're taking back the
bricks you contributed to it.
Reimporting CanVec atop existing edits would cause all sorts of
trouble. The remaining, undeleted edits would be superimposed. I would
have thought John would know that by
"What should John do?"
John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under the
terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting
everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have
impacted more than just "your" data.
That is what John should
My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none acceptance.
This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this was not
possible.
My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this
request has been ignored more than once.
I don't feel at all comfortable
ponsible
> of a change in the licence?
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* June 6, 2011 16:17
> *To:* Richard Weait
> *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whel
All...
I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say that I
am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back cleaning
up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I would
respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question.
On
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan wrote:
> Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT.
If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and
why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it
was something along the lines of, you could read it all and m
It's not up to John to determine, privately and unilaterally, what is
and isn't acceptable vis-à-vis CanVec and OSM. If he has a legitimate
concern, he should bring that concern to the attention of the OSM
community and have it thoroughly discussed -- and, you know, maybe
WARN US that he's going to
16:17:27 -0400
From: jwhelan0...@gmail.com
To: rich...@weait.com
CC: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into the
subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license anything I
have ever
From: john whelan [mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com]
Sent: June 6, 2011 16:17
To: Richard Weait
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into the
subject I note that I have retrospectively
Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. On looking more deeply into
the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to license
anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. Currently it is
odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever changing
docu
Dear John,
Your edit today http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8355694
deleted thousands of nodes and ways, with a comment of "bixi
bike_rental" but in fact deleted large portions of Leslie park.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?minlon=-75.8392303&minlat=45.3141652&maxlon=-75.7587115&maxlat
34 matches
Mail list logo
