On 5 August 2010 09:02, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > So let's talk about making that process easier instead of using the current > broken system.
Here we have Nearmap willing to spend time, money and other resources to address the issue and you want to waste further resources to discuss something no one else really seems to want to spend time and effort doing something about it. > Licensing is an important part of OSM, but I don't think I mentioned > anything about licensing in my response... You didn't even read the part of your email that I quoted? > 2) So we can communicate with the end mapper (regarding license changes, > community events, etc.). That looks like licensing to me... As I said, the people likely to make one off changes want to fix 1 maybe 2 errors, they don't care about licenses and they don't want to become part of a community. So this point is completely irrelevant. The alternative is like someone else pointed out, Nearmap adopt an OSB style system and then someone else has to update both the map data and the bug to achieve the same goal, I did this earlier in the week for some OSB reports and it's not much fun, in fact if there were a lot of them I wouldn't bother and I doubt anyone else will long term either. > Again, let's fix that problem instead of trying to wedge it into the current > system. I'm pretty sure this is inline with some of SteveC's ideas that everyone was shouting down earlier this year, so what happened after Steve stopped talking about it, pretty much nothing as far as I can see. If we want to keep growing I doubt we can exclude the efforts of others, like Nearmap, we just don't have the resources, or the foresight, to do something like this, there is too many nay sayers like yourself that shouts down anything remotely beyond the status quo and the existing user base. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk