On 2013-05-23 16:00, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 23.05.2013 15:35, schrieb Maarten Deen:
On 2013-05-23 15:10, Simon Poole wrote:
Maarten, there is no need to start the discussion at square one
again.
We did what our counsel recommended in February as reported then (so
you
can safely assume that counsel saw a certain potential for trouble
in
such usage). The list they provided is simply to illustrate usage
that
is unproblematic.
That's why I ask. I certainly do not want to start the discussion
about the removal again, but some specific steps were taken and
counsel did not see it fit to give that an example that usage of such
links is unproblematic. I find that strange and almost a sign that
the
usage of GEOCODE in URLs _is_ problematic (however unlikely I find
that, but IANAL).
Nevertheless, I take your answer as an "there is no problem entering
a
URL with the word GEOCODE into the OSM wiki" because that is what I
would have liked to hear. Do correct me if I understand it wrong.
I obviously didn't say anything of the sort. Please simply don't do
it,
as requested in February.
Again, that is why I asked. Was it so hard to give this answer the
first time I asked? I really do not want to go to this kind of
nitpicking, but if people can not give straight answers to simple
questions than apparently you have to start being pedantic to get them.
Sorry for that.
But please do not be evasive about this issue. It is uncomfortable and
tiresome as it is trying to tiptoe around actions in the past without
blaming people, but being unclear about what is and is not possible
makes it only worse.
Maarten
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
