On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a
>> street sign to be a "fact", but the same words written on a map to be
>> copyrightable? And many similar examples.
>
> A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not b
I've used 'smell' on the proposal; I think more people will know that word!
As an aside, there's a playground viewer app here:
http://ant.homelinux.net/maps/index.html
which shows (as blue icons) any playgrounds created with the new
schema. It's experimental at the moment, working with a snapsho
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM, John Smith wrote:
>> cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a
>> street sign to be a "fact", but the same words written on a map to be
>> copyrightable? And many similar examples.
>
> A map is a collection of facts, which may or may not
On 5/17/10 5:38 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
>
>>> cautious than we need to be. Why do we consider what's written on a
>>> street sign to be a "fact", but the same words written on a map to be
>>> copyrightable? And many similar examples.
>>>
>
>
> * Unglue roads that share borders with landuses and move them into the
> "correct" one (a residential road into the residential area etc).
>
>
I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider
between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
> I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider
> between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and
> move it into one or the other?
>
>
It's best to unglue but it's also not wrong to g
Personally I'm starting to use multipolygons more and more - define a
"boundary" once and reuse is as many times as needed by the landuses
either side.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Pieren
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Landuse border al
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider
>> between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and
>> move it into one or the oth
2010/5/17 Steve Bennett :
it doesn't seem to work for e.g. amenity=drinking_water
(you list just Osmarender, but it is also displayed in Mapnik, the
cyclemap and JOSM and probably others as well).
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstr
I was using the OSM maps for my city on my Garmin recently and when I
listed the "parking" POIs I noticed a whole slew of parking showing up in
there; mainly "unnamed".. It got me thinking why those are in there but
then it dawned on me that in my area I've started adding in the parking
lots and
2010/5/16 Zeke Farwell :
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> 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
> d
2010/5/17 Pieren :
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonas Minnberg wrote:
>>
>> I'm kind of considering if this is right or not - if a road is the divider
>> between two landuses, is it still best to unglue it from the landuse(s) and
>> move it into one or the other?
>>
>
> It's best to unglue b
2010/5/17 Andre Engels :
> Even if the collection is copyrighted, that does not make its elements
> copyrighted. What is copyrighted in the case of such a collection, is
> the (result of) the selection process that decides which facts are and
> are not included.
My first comment was not heading to
On 17 May 2010 21:00, Richard Welty wrote:
> the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may
> be intentional
> on the part of the map maker. in this latter case, they are likely there
> to create the copyright
> claim.
Again, it depends on the jurisdiction, from memory m
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> the other issue, of course, is when the map contains mistakes, which may
> be intentional on the part of the map maker.
>
And then what about when the map mistakes become the commonly accepted name
of the road, and then wind up going on the
The ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) just released
a data set of communication transponder locations for TV and radio
station, a lot of these share the same mast/tower however this
proposed feature suggests using multiple nodes to indicate multiple
transponders but this doesn't
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> 1. What should the "access" for these parking lots be? access=public
> would seem to be appropriate, but in some regards that's not entirely
> accurate. Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of
> notice that tow-away
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM, John Smith wrote:
>
> The ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) just released
> a data set of communication transponder locations for TV and radio
> station, a lot of these share the same mast/tower however this
> proposed feature suggests using mul
On 18 May 2010 13:05, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Separate entities should be represented by separate OSM elements.
> Relations are "groups of objects in which each object may take on a
> specific role", so I don't think this is appropriate here.
You are grouping transmitters/transponders to a tower, an
> From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking:
> "The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
> (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
> in a business park) is handled with access=* tags."
> To me, reading that directly that would seem to
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> > From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking:
> > "The distinction between public parking lots, customer parking lots
> > (such as at cinemas etc.), and private parking lots (such as for staff
> > in a business park) is handled with acces
21 matches
Mail list logo
