On 13 Jul 2010, at 6:34 , Ian Dees wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:39 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
For example:
- The proposal requires unique, persistent IDs for landmarks/points of
interest. OSM does not have an accepted way of storing persistent
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.comwrote:
the way osm works is so different that this doesn't make much sense. a DB
where anyone at any time can modify, delete data will require
To who may concern in the OSM community (please excuse any double postings).
The OSM community is encouraged to consider offering a proposal in response to
the RFP proposed at
http://www.metrocouncil.org/doing_business/contracting/1259541.pdf. The
geographic extent to the seven-county,
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:39 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
To who may concern in the OSM community (*please excuse any double
postings*).
The OSM community is encouraged to consider offering a proposal in response
to the RFP proposed at
4 matches
Mail list logo
