[talk-au] Suburb boundaries

[Franc Carter]

I have added an entry to the data catalogue at

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#One-Time_Imports

and the beginnings of page about the import at

   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data

cheers

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Franc Carter <franc.carter at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> All confirmed - let the fun begin.
>
> cheers
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Franc Carter <franc.carter at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> I just had a conversation with a really helpful person at the ABS.
>>
>> She indicated that the ABS is taking a view of the data that is very
>> similar/compatible
>> with (at least my understanding) the view that OpenStreetMap is taking
>> towards the
>> data.
>>
>> Specifically she indicated that the ABS was not specifically concerned
>> that attribution was
>> done in a specific manner, just that the attribution was able to be found.
>> She will put
>> something in an email so that we have an official statement.
>>
>> So, it looks like we may well have a some valuable data to add, which is
>> good because
>> I already spent a couple of hours working out hot to import it ;-)
>>
>> There are two issues that I have come across with converting to osm:-
>>
>>    1. What way do we want to represent the data, e.g closed ways or
>> relations consisting
>>        of borders - something else ?
>>
>>    2. The more technical problem that the boundaries are defined fairly
>> precisely (or more accurately
>>        there are lots of points defining the boundaries). So the .osm file
>> is very large - so eyeballing
>>        it in josm is not going to work.
>>
>> So I'm interested in people's suggestions of how we want to represent the
>> data and on methods we can
>> use to sanity check the data before we upload it.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:23 AM, James Churchill <pelrun at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Franc Carter <franc.carter at ...> writes:
>>>
>>> > While putting together an email for this I came across an issue.
>>> > Currently OSM is Creative Commons licensed which looks pretty
>>> compatible with
>>> > their license (ignoring the practicalities of attribution). However the
>>> license > is being discussed at the moment and may well soon change
>>> and/or split.
>>> > Should I wait until the license issue gets 'sorted' ?
>>>
>>> I don't see a problem - the CC license the data is under only requires
>>> attribution, it doesn't restrict what the license of the derivative work
>>> is. And
>>> as OSM is looking for a license that (and I quote) "needs to give our
>>> database
>>> the same three basic licensing elements (freely copiable; share-alike;
>>> attribution required) as it has at present" there's little worry of OSM
>>> becoming
>>> incompatible.
>>>
>>> At least, the matter shouldn't delay inquiries :)
>>>
>>> - James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Franc
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Franc
>



-- 
Franc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20090205/a044eac2/attachment.html>