[OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Mon Jul 11 15:47:12 BST 2011

If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct 
clarification from them that they have no objection to continued 
distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the 
ODbL. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. 
Hope that helps.


On 11/07/2011 16:30, john whelan wrote:
> As I mentioned people can get frustrated.  I made three requests 
> apparently to the incorrect people to have data deleted prior to 
> deleting some but since have made a formal request which was ignored.
> The CANVEC data wasn't a major issue and could easily have been 
> reimported, it was some of the other data that was mixed in with it 
> that is the problem and its not so easily identifiable.  I think it 
> was Ordnance Survey identified derived data as being a problem.
> I would be more than happy if any data that is not labelled CANVEC 
> import under my user id could be removed, to me CANVEC was not the 
> major issue and that would get rid of the major source of the problem 
> data.  I can then drop back in the clean manually mapped bits.  I 
> think others interpreted CANVEC is being the problem area, I certainly 
> didn't identify it as being the only problem.
> By the way under the new CT OSM can change the license on the data.  
> CANVEC have agreed that .ODBL or SA are acceptable and I'm happy with 
> that.  However CANVEC does not have the authority to release the data 
> when the subsequent license can be changed.
> As you yourself have stated the new CT is not import friendly and the 
> uncertainty that introduced by the "oh and we can change the license 
> to whatever we like" part of the new CT effectively means it is 
> impossible to accept any imported data licensing.
> I think OSM's current niche is the community side and to accept 
> individual's data to build the map and basically get out of imports.  
> Let others build the maps that combine imports with user data.
> Cheerio John
> On 11 July 2011 09:23, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org 
> <mailto:frederik at remote.org>> wrote:
>     Hi,
>     On 07/11/11 15:17, john whelan wrote:
>         I inadvertently included some grey material and requested it
>         be deleted
>         from OSM, that request was ignored.
>     Are you a different John Whelan from the John Whelan who deleted
>     (not "requested it to be deleted" but "deleted without prior
>     discussion") lots of his imported data in Canada, tearing down
>     with it contributions by many others, because of so-called license
>     doubts when at the same time a member of the government agency
>     that released the data went on record on talk-ca to say
>     "everything is all right"?
>     Bye
>     Frederik
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20110711/bcbf81ce/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list