[OSM-talk] [talk-au] Fwd: Re: Why PD is not better for business
paul.youlten at gmail.com
Fri Dec 11 14:19:53 GMT 2009
Clearly all those things, and much more, can and should be mapped.
They can all be seen on the street and they all have public access. I
agree: "If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped." ++
What is less clear is what happens if changing the licence means we
lose "invisible" administrative boundaries and data from areas where
public access is difficult, restricted or non-existent.
For example would be nice to include the boundaries of a UK National
Park or a site of special scientific interest or (dare I say it) the
coastline of Australia - but I don't think it is a "disaster" that
threatens the future of the project if these things are removed
because of a change in the licence.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> paul youlten wrote:
>> But it is still a street map that we are making - administrative
>> boundaries, top secret government installations, Al Qaeda training
>> camps, water catchment areas and so on are fascinating (and probably
>> great fun to map) but they are not necessarily part of a street map.
> I think you have a slightly narrow perspective of OSM.
> Yes, it has street in the title & yes, it says "/such as street maps" /in
> the tag line, but it doesn't say 'only' street maps.
> Do you think parks, pubs, recycling centres etc shouldn't be mapped?
> If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped.
> Dave F.
Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807
More information about the talk