Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-11 Thread Derick Rethans
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Ed Avis wrote: > OK guys, it's public domain. Enjoy. Cheers! This is much appreciated. Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-11 Thread Jonathan Bennett
On 11/01/2012 10:02, Ed Avis wrote: > OK guys, it's public domain. Enjoy. > Ed, Thank you, from a mapper whose work doesn't overlap with yours very much. You've made a lot of contributions over the years, and it's great that OpenStreetMap can continue to use them. The licence change process ha

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-11 Thread Richard Fairhurst
*applauds* Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-change-anonymous-edits-tp7150109p7175676.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-11 Thread Ed Avis
OK guys, it's public domain. Enjoy. -- Ed Avis ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Derick Rethans
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Ed Avis wrote: > Personally I've tagged source=OS when relying only on OpenData and not > additional ground survey or aerial photos; however, there is still > some 'sweat of the brow' involved since matching up the streets > against OS involves some judgement calls and common

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Ed Avis
Frederik Ramm writes: >saying "yes, 80n did have intellectual >property on this one, and no, I didn't change it, but yes, it is now >ODbL clean" is, in my eyes, a legal impossibility. I think you are probably right, but not everyone agrees. And some of those who don't agree will be tagging od

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Ed Avis
Richard Fairhurst writes: >Those with an eye to mischief may like to ponder how one might code (i.e. >sweat-of-the-brow) and run a bot which reviewed streetnames and other >attributes against OS OpenData, and tagged them odbl=clean if they were >found fitting. Even after performing this comparis

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread David Earl
On 10/01/2012 16:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: Why does pressing the keys make any difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts th

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst
David Earl wrote: > Why does pressing the keys make any > difference whatsoever? The original contributor doesn't own the > copyright in the name, only their contribution, and by marking it > odbl clean I'm making an alternative contribution which asserts > the source is now legitimate. I thin

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread David Earl
On 10/01/2012 14:53, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 01/10/12 15:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the na

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 01/10/12 15:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 01/10/12 14:53, David Earl wrote: Yes, the trouble is when Frederik pointed this out and referred to the page, it says it is for cases where the suspect edit has been wiped out, not simply verified from other sources. How can you change the name from itself to itself and actually have cha

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Michael Collinson
On 10/01/2012 15:13, Peter Miller wrote: On 10 January 2012 13:53, David Earl > wrote: On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarificat

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Peter Miller
On 10 January 2012 13:53, David Earl wrote: > On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> Michael Collinson wrote: >> >>> +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean >>> >> >> Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, >> it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread David Earl
On 10/01/2012 13:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Michael Collinson wrote: +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisa

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Michael Collinson wrote: > +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean Just a tiny little clarification - this isn't something I've dreamed up, it's a real live tag with 9,000 occurrences in the database already, and which is being used by status visualisations such as OSM Inspector. :) cheers Richard

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Peter Miller
On 10 January 2012 13:19, Michael Collinson wrote: > ** > On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote: > > > > On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl wrote: > >> On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: >> >>> Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this >>> features on the basis

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Michael Collinson
On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote: On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl > wrote: On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved th

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Peter Miller wrote: > Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for > this features on the basis that we have moved them > and edited all the surrounding features? Yes, there is - tag it with odbl=clean. > To replace a single node that forms a junction might > involve unstitchin

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Peter Miller
On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl wrote: > On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: > >> Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this >> features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the >> surrounding features? >> > > Exactly the question I raised on talk o

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread David Earl
On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the surrounding features? Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even need to have moved anything,

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-10 Thread Peter Miller
On 4 January 2012 15:28, Tom Chance wrote: > On 4 January 2012 12:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> There are no "genuinely anonymous" edits. Our database has the user id >> and email address for everyone who made such an edit. They have received >> the license change emails (if their address is st

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-04 Thread Tom Chance
On 4 January 2012 12:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > There are no "genuinely anonymous" edits. Our database has the user id and > email address for everyone who made such an edit. They have received the > license change emails (if their address is still valid), and they can log > in and agree to the

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-04 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 01/04/12 12:52, Tom Chance wrote: The only mention I can find of this on the wiki dismisses the issue and inaccurately suggests these objects do in fact have a user associated with them, so it's not a problem: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Anonymous_co

[Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

2012-01-04 Thread Tom Chance
I've been looking at this handy map of objects that will (currently) be lost on the license change: http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=12&lat=51.5032&lon=-0.068 It appears as though we'll lose most of the tube stations, along with an awful lot of fiddly little bits of detail in London, where the datab