[OSM-talk] Osmarender 5

[David Earl]

On 01/09/2007 13:21, 80n wrote:
> On 9/1/07, *Tom Hughes* <tom at compton.nu <mailto:tom at compton.nu>> wrote:
> 
>     In message
>     <8fcd02310709010441y5356e997o18be09709484e22c at mail.gmail.com
>     <mailto:8fcd02310709010441y5356e997o18be09709484e22c at mail.gmail.com>>
>               80n <80n80n at gmail.com <mailto:80n80n at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>      > On 9/1/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com
>     <mailto:david at frankieandshadow.com>> wrote:
>      > >
>      > > Why do many of the street names in Oakham have "(C) persons name"
>      > > against them? This rather spoils the map IMO.
>      >
>      >
>      > It's an experiment, I'd like to hear people's opinions.
> 
>     As discussed on IRC the other night after it first appeared, the
>     consensus seemed be that it was bogus.
> 
>     To start with you can't possibly know if that is the correct copyright
>     attribution, assuming that you've just taken the last person to edit
>     it and ignore all previous editors who may well have far more work.
> 
>     It might even have been created by the Tiger upload or by somebody
>     who has declared their work PD and therefore not be copyright at all.
> 
>     When you were first playing with it there was no copyright symbol was
>     there? I think adding it was a big mistake as it makes an assertion
>     that will frequently be wrong.
> 
> 
> If the API were to actually provide the correct attribution then it 
> would be right.  Don't shoot the messenger ;)

But there's no point in being a messenger if the message is wrong.

If it were right, it would be too long to display in many cases as so 
many people contribute to the same Way.

And if it were right, would it be useful? What does it offer they 
typical map viewer? If you need to know, you can find this out easily 
enough.

The names are meaningless to the typical viewer: they're all 
abbreviations or pseudonyms.

I really think this is unnecessary and pointless clutter.

David