Re: [Talk-us] Beware Pokemon users

As an update to my original message: I have been active on /r/TheSilphRoad over the past couple of days commenting and clarifying some things. I have seen a couple other OSMers there too. Yesterday someone started a discussion titled "Our impact on OSM, might be bad" so at least the POGO community

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

Hi everyone! I think it's safe to say that this thread has wandered way off topic. Please keep messages constructive and on-topic. A great place to discuss the license and implications of others' use of OSM data are the couple legal mailing lists. Thanks, and happy new year! -Ian, your friendly l

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > The ODbL is very clear on what "Publicly" is: > > “Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by > either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their > activities (such as contracting with an independent cons

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National >> Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone >> routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that >> they sh

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

> As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National > Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone > routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that > they should be tagged with trunk. > --Roadsguy > The formulation on

Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 109, Issue 30

>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the >National Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally >more backbone routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it >makes se

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

The ODbL is very clear on what "Publicly" is: “Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant). No need to speculate on that point. On the other han

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Can you help me understand what part of the ODbL [1] they are violating? > As far I can tell, they don't modify the data nor do they display OSM tiles > or make any of the data available (​It was not my assertion, I was hypothetically an

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > ​Traditional map copyright violation proof would be adding a Trap Close​ > ... do the have a map that shows name of feature that spawns critters? > Adding a nonsense footpath to no-where (shaped like a P ? ) in a > non-existent park and che

[Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that they should be tagged with trunk. --Roadsguy__

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On 2016.12.30. 21:19, Bill Ricker wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > > I wonder how we would politely license-check Niantic... > > > ​Traditional map copyright violation proof would be adding a Trap Close​ > ... do the have a ma

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I wonder how we would politely license-check Niantic... ​Traditional map copyright violation proof would be adding a Trap Close​ ... do the have a map that shows name of feature that spawns critters? Adding a nonsense footpath to no-where (

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

Warin said: "Targeting Pokemon contributors falls into a trap... the assumption that a particular activity/group are all inclined to vandalism. These new contributors could be very usefull ... if 'we' don't tar them all with abusive thoughts." Most definitely, we should assume good faith -- but I

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > They're using the same map they used in Ingress, a game they launched when > still part of Google. That one is known to have come from Google. It makes > sense that any map databases they had when the break happened would still > be owned by th

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

They're using the same map they used in Ingress, a game they launched when still part of Google. That one is known to have come from Google. It makes sense that any map databases they had when the break happened would still be owned by the company; they just wouldn't have maps that included chan

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Targeting Pokemon contributors falls into a trap... the assumption that a > particular activity/group are all inclined to vandalism. Another trap, too: Assuming that Niantic and/or Nintendo are using OpenStreetMap for this