On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > How so? If it's such a big financial burden, and isn't providing any > benefit to whoever is incurring the financial burden, then that's even more > the reason to take it off the main map. >
OCM is providing plenty of benefit to plenty of people. I have no idea of the cost/benefit analysis of the bill-paper, nor is it relevant to the discussion. > > So start your own project. Andy has every right to do what he wants with > his, and he's "explained pretty convincingly" that he doesn't want others > coming in and screwing up his work. > > As I said before, I don't have a problem with that. I completely respect > that decision. In fact, I might very well do the same thing if I found > myself in the same position. But if that's Andy's decision, then keeping > OCM in the main map is just keeping around an unnecessary crutch. It's time > to put away the crutch. > > If OCM isn't going to be open, then it shouldn't be in the main map. > I'd suggest that if and when there is a "more open" OCM, then you might argue to replace Andy's one with it. I don't see a point in shooting ourselves in the foot before then. I *do* see a point in making the relationship between the two projects clearer to the casual browser. If anyone does want to start their own open bike mapping project based on OSM, I'd be interested to be part of it. I don't have a strong interest in driving the thing though. Steve
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
