Michael Collinson wrote: > On 19/03/2012 13:40, John Sturdy wrote: > > I think the time's getting close enough that I'll resume that work > > anyway. > This is almost certainly a person I had an amicable phone > conversation with a week last Monday who is still concerned > that OS open data somehow is not compatible with the > new terms. Probability is dropping like a stone given the time > that has passed but there is still a chance of a yes.
AIUI only a small amount of Andy Street's work (I don't see the point of pussyfooting around, we all know who it is!) is OS-derived. And, with the best will in the world, any monkey like thee or me can trace from OS OpenData, but Andy's footpath surveying work is excellent and it would be a shame to lose it because of an unrelated issue. Would a sensible solution be for LWG and/or any other volunteers to work with him on identifying the affected changesets; for those changesets to be retained; and for the remainder to remain 'declined' and be dropped in early April? After all, at the very least, OS OpenData was only released in April 2010, so it's actually impossible that any of his edits before then are in doubt. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Remapping-update-tp5573600p5577315.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb