Hello everyone...
I noticed that the Dorset/Wiltshire county boundary just north of
Shaftesbury is shown in the wrong place in OSM. There is a road sign on
the A350 about a quarter mile north of the junction with the A30,
whereas the map shows the boundary crossing the A350 about a mile to the
On 22/08/2010 22:52, Richard Bullock wrote:
It's also a "between other mappers area" - north of the West Midlands, a
bit west for me and a bit SE for mikh43.
He's roughly editing at my southern limit as well.
Rereading my post after sending it, it read like I was saying that there
wasn't anyo
On 21/08/2010 10:01, Ian Spencer wrote:
I suspect that it is an area where it has never been done properly, so
there hasn't been an example to follow.
It's also a "between other mappers area" - north of the West Midlands, a
bit west for me and a bit SE for mikh43.
He's roughly editing at my
David Groom writes:
> Oh , if only it were that simple.
>
> Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk about data you have
> added, not data which still exists.
>
> But more importantly your contributions would still remain in all the planet
> dumps, so I presume you'd be relying on
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS
The last 2%
David Groom writes:
Oh , if only it were that simple.
Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk a
Andrew wrote:
> There is essentially no difference post-relicensing between data derived from
> an
> unrelicensable source and mapping that is not relicensed because people cannot
> be contacted. Planet dumps from the CC-by-SA era are a non-issue because they
> remain wholly under the Creative Co
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS
The last 2%
David Groom writes:
Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's
and
their prea
David Groom writes:
> Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's and
> their preamble.
I see no real problem.
All of my Opendata-based edits have clear source tags; apart from quality
control issues, I have always understood this is needed for the licence even
wit
Thanks 80n and David,
Potlatch is still offering Opendata as a layer, with no warning as to the
potential problem vis a vis existing contributions. Shouldn't we be dropping
this rather quickly?
Phillip
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...
- Original Message -
From: "80n" <80n...@gmail.com>
To: "Barnett, Phillip"
Cc: "David Groom" ;
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
WAS The last 2%
Phillip
OSM has always taken a very conservative approach
- Original Message -
From: "Barnett, Phillip"
To: "'80n'" <80n...@gmail.com>; "David Groom"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
WAS The last 2%
I've been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I've
Phillip
OSM has always taken a very conservative approach on licensing and if in
doubt has erred on the side of caution.
Following this philosophy you cannot agree to the contributor terms.
If you can find a way to revert your OS contributions then you would be able
to agree to the new contributo
I've been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I've contributed
approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS
data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected?
I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to.
I'm now not touching OS data
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Kevin Peat"
> To: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)"
> >;
>
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
> WAS The last 2%
>
>
>
> However,
>>> However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
>>> incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
>>> ODbL too.
>>>
>> I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to
>> townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data f
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Peat"
To: "Robert Whittaker (OSM)" ;
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
WAS The last 2%
However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
incompati
> However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
> incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
> ODbL too.
>
>
I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to
townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural map
>> OS opendata is released under a CC-BY-SA licence
>>
> Please go and actually read the OS OpenData licence. It is not CC-BY-SA.
> Please stop spreading this FUD.
You're right, it's not CC-By-SA. The actual license is a custom
"attribution-style" license, that's closest equivalent in CC terms
wou
I think the following thread might be of interest:
http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg10077.html
Try pressing 'u' in Potlatch edit view : http://osm.org/go/eu2Tbe8i.
From: Ian Spencer
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 20
19 matches
Mail list logo
