<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 24/03/2011 16:09, Mike Harris wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dave<br>
<br>
I am interested in your opinion but please hold back slightly from
giving me instructions as to what to do or not do. There might be
other opinions.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Uh?<br>
My initial post was a question, your first reply was an instruction!<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<br>
My use of the verb "assume" was more to ask for other opinions -
and thank you for yours - than to claim that my personal
assumption (or anyone else's for that matter) was a valid basis
for OSM work. Assumption differs from guessing inasmuch as there
needs to be at least some basis for the former!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I've looked it up, and nowhere does it say that making an assumption
is asking for opinion:<br>
<br>
assume<br>
1. To authenticate by means of belief; to surmise; to suppose to
be true, especially without proof.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<br>
To help me decide where I stand, please could you provide me with
the evidence for your statement that the acronym "ORPA" is
copyright to the OS? </blockquote>
<br>
I didn't say that, which I think you know. Taking information from
copyrighted data is illegal.<br>
<br>
Seeing as you failed to answer previously, I'll ask my question
again - Do these lists use the name ORPA?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">I
have not seen it registered as a trade mark or similar? but
perhaps I have missed that. Does the copyright you mention extend
to the English language phrase "other routes with public access" -
I would have thought that such a phrase would be difficult to
protect with copyright?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If OS came up with the phrase & are its only users, I would say
not, & err on the side of caution. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
I won't enter hear into the debate as to whether OSM should record
only and exclusively what can be seen on the ground as this has
been discussed endlessly. I suspect that your opinion is currently
a minority view. It seems to me that there are countless (in all
sorts of contexts) examples of people including in the database
information that cannot be seen on the ground e.g. the "source"
tag.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's disappointing you misinterpreted by comment as being exclusive;
but maybe you needed to, to further your contrariness. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<br>
Let's not get too dictatorial in this discussion!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Pot, kettle. See my initial point above.<br>
<br>
----------------<br>
<br>
Back to ORPA. <br>
<br>
With it using the vagueness of 'other' I'm failing to see it's
usefulness. It only tells us what it is not & gives no
indication of what it actually represents. <br>
<br>
The alternative tags of foot, horse etc. are better used as they can
be verified by other means than the OS. <br>
In the cases of use I mentioned, the removal of ORPA did not reduce
the accuracy of the ways.<br>
<br>
*If* OS is the only source then I believe it should be be removed
for reasons already stated.<br>
<br>
Dave F.<br>
</body>
</html>