On 17 May 2010 15:54, John Smith wrote:
> A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not be copyrightable
> depending on the jurisdiction, but a single fact most likely can't be
> protected by copyright, although the sign itself might be due to
> artistic flare of the designer etc etc etc.
On 17 May 2010 15:02, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'll stop there and repeat a previous request for an actual copyright
> lawyer to provide us some advice on where the line is. IMHO we're more
For which jurisdiction, copyright law has been shaped not only by laws
in various jurisdictions but also by p
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
> That doesn't matter for OSM. All things are copyrighted, you said it
> yourself. Whether it's "fact" or "knowledge" doesn't matter.
Copyright protects the expression of ideas - not knowledge, or facts.
I'll stop there and repeat a previous r
2010/5/16 Andre Engels :
> That doesn't matter for OSM. All things are copyrighted, you said it
> yourself. Whether it's "fact" or "knowledge" doesn't matter.
no, you can't put copyright on facts.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openst
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Lennard wrote:
> On 16-5-2010 23:56, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> Are there any others like this? I just had a look, and apart from
>> normalising yes/true/1 to 'yes', I don't see any other examples like
>> this one. Which means I can just manually add an exception.
>
Also, in areas with sufficient rainfall, a former field will revert to forest
within 20 years or so, assuming the farmer didn't let all of the topsoil erode
away.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to
think at a
On 16-5-2010 23:56, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Are there any others like this? I just had a look, and apart from
> normalising yes/true/1 to 'yes', I don't see any other examples like
> this one. Which means I can just manually add an exception.
Currently, no, there aren't, but don't count on it stay
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Lennard wrote:
> On 16-5-2010 17:26, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport
> [...]
>> * Harder than it sounds - almost every source file had changed in a
>> way that broke my program.
>
> You still have some (new) issues
On 17 May 2010 01:59, Andre Engels wrote:
> Then again, the boards usually also come from local government.
Most signs are contracted out to sign companies, the local governments
here don't do them directly.
> That doesn't matter for OSM. All things are copyrighted, you said it
> yourself. Wheth
On 16-5-2010 17:26, Steve Bennett wrote:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport
[...]
> * Harder than it sounds - almost every source file had changed in a
> way that broke my program.
You still have some (new) issues with the mapnik stylesheet. These might
take some extra c
On Sunday 16 May 2010 18:11:47 Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> > > Also, is it OK that natural overlaps landuse? It kind of has to be,
> > > since it's used a lot to place brushes or tree-areas i
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
> > Also, is it OK that natural overlaps landuse? It kind of has to be, since
> > it's used a lot to place brushes or tree-areas inside larger landuses.
>
> Sure. If a forest crosse
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 May 2010 05:27, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>> The time these come in handy is when they show the streets in a residential
>> area that don't otherwise have clear streetnames - usually when there are
>> lots of small ways in between the buildin
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
> Also, is it OK that natural overlaps landuse? It kind of has to be, since
> it's used a lot to place brushes or tree-areas inside larger landuses.
Sure. If a forest crosses a fenceline, then it overlaps. I did
something like that here:
ht
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/tagsupport
Some of you will remember when I made this table six months ago. I've
updated it now*, with the latest versions of all input data, except
OSMdoc.
For those who don't know it, this table is generated by analysing
source code for the major
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMHO yes, as natural is mainly about landcover (what you physically
> encounter on the spot) while landuse is about usage.
>
If you want do some extremely detailed mapping you might make a lot of
different no
2010/5/16 Jonas Minnberg :
> Also, is it OK that natural overlaps landuse? It kind of has to be, since
> it's used a lot to place brushes or tree-areas inside larger landuses.
IMHO yes, as natural is mainly about landcover (what you physically
encounter on the spot) while landuse is about usage.
2010/5/16 Pieren :
> +1
> I submitted a ticket to revert this change :
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2970
> Mapnik cannot display all tags and all information in OSM. Showing all
> private things will result of an unreadable map.
It depends on the way the information is displayed. Of cou
So the common problem I have here in Stockholm is that most residential
areas in the suburbs have been "carved" out of wood- and grass-areas so
there is always a mish-mash between those three.
Is the correct way to split up all those landuses in smaller parts so they
never overlap?
Also, is it OK
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Katie Filbert wrote:
>
> Now, there is a new, somewhat faded "P" symbol that is used for non-public
> parking. (both non-public parking areas/lots and points/nodes)
>
> I dislike this change, and wonder what the reasoning is behind the change.
>
>
+1
I submitted a
20 matches
Mail list logo
