<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 29/03/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Frederik Ramm</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>I think you misunderstood me here. What I was saying that there is a<br>possibility that using *no* hi-res imagery at all might in fact be<br>*better* than using the Yahoo imagery in the current situation because<br>of the side effects.
</blockquote><div><br><br>Using Yahoo imagery is infinitely better than no imagery at all -- as long as the final result remains free and "untainted" people can collect the data from whereever they like. ie: I can't see any side effects at present.
<br><br>The only issues are in what the developers are allowed to do when making OSM tools, which seems to boil down to something like "please don't scrape us". So the only thing effected is the editing process for those wishing to actually use Yahoo data -- obviously, if anyone feels that the restrictions are too huge, they're free not to use it... JOSM still works, and you can still collect GPS tracks.
<br><br></div></div>BTW if you're mapping in a Yahoo covered area things become so much easier -- you can cover the streets about twice as quick because you don't need to cycle down each one if there's nothing at the end of it. And mapping non-cycleable features becomes possible: park boundaries, graveyards, river banks, golf courses, large building boundaries...
<br>... on that basis can I just say a big thank you to everyone who's spent time getting the Yahoo data available!<br><br>