They can say whatever they like - the maps are out of copyright, and "slavish reproduction" lacks originality. Unless they've gone to the trouble of rectifying them for you, or have restored them to such a degree that they could be argued to not be the same map, you don't need their permission to use what they don't hold exclusive rights to. The point made in the US in Bridgeman v. Corel was affirmed (albeit because it didn't apply) in the UK in Antiquesportfolio v. Fitch. Unfortunately for them, simply saying "you need our permission" doesn't magically make it so. The National Portrait Gallery tried a similar stunt with Wikipedia - and it backfired badly.

Geraniums were discussed at this meeting? I think we should be told!

It's arguable that you want the landuse= to move with the road if it is moved in future, so gluing the areas either side to the road does make sense (though not gluing the areas to the road also makes sense, for different reasons). There's an argument to be had about having separate landuse= for separate "areas" when each has its own name, which presumably can also be tagged with place= or addressing attributes, Or Something[TM].

I would suggest that actually the biggest problem is that coastlines are generally taken to be high water, which implies that for anywhere with a tidal beach the bit you want is not usually covered in water. That might pose a problem for the kayak. ;-)

I'd be brave and suggest that there's nothing wrong with a semi-colon value separator in the amenity field. If someone's "find me a cafe" tool won't pick up an amenity=restaurant;cafe then their tool is broken. This is the kind of nonsense that leads people to go and insert spaces or alternative separators (e.g. "x/y" or "x - y") because they think that "x;y" is ugly when rendered. It *is* ugly, but if it's rendered that way, the renderer is broken. I did raise this issue before but it seems to have been summarily ignored.

Actually, disregard that - I've now spotted an example that didn't load in my browser the first time around.

It would be useful to be able to transform the key as well as the value. This would allow things such as "if 'name' matches /^[A-Z]\d+$/, change key from 'name' to 'ref'"

In general, the consensus is that abbreviations are generally a bad idea. The one exception is with directions in the US, which often appear twice in an address.

Solution is easy. Get a real mouse. :o)

I mentioned this to someone today, and they brought up an interesting counter-point. In the classic survival exercise, you are told to try and use the map for raw material, lest someone try and use it to escape. Aid workers by and large do not have access to most of the country, and those that do already know their patch. Therefore, there is an argument to be made not to map the area for fear of encouraging unknowing aid workers to their deaths.

Of course, the counter-argument to that is that pretty much all the foreign aid workers on the ground already know this, so it's not an issue.

I think you may have missed a couple. ;-)

I think you may have missed a couple. ;-)

I think some compensation for wrongful arrest is in order. Were that me, I'd give them two weeks notice and have at them through the courts, along with an injunction to get the records removed. (Disclaimer: I am an utter bastard, and do this sort of thing for fun.)

"It" in this case referring to the physical roadway. There's a gap in the pavement where the junction would have been, so I presume it's not a copyright trap, but beyond is simply trees and bushes. Aerials in the location are missing the tell-tale gaps in the vegetation that would reveal a street or a driveway.

@Andy: That doesn't change the notion that OSMF is a super-secret Bilderberg-esque elite cabal that some seem to persist in spreading. It has only appeared in the minutes as a result of whistle-blowing - the document was presented to a limited audience (i.e. not before everyone) and was presented after the meeting was closed, with the aim of getting a cut, which smells like back-room horse-trading to me. I don't think this is "asking something in return", it's a laundry list of demands. It's also a perfect demonstration of the sort of situation that the CT seek to prevent. If everyone turned up with a list of demands each time something came up for debate, we'd never get anything done.

@netman55: Last time I checked, the mailing lists, IRC channel, the forum and the wiki all carry no charge. Also, last time I checked, voting is neither necessary nor sufficient for democracy. I have seen democratic decisions taken without recourse to a vote, and I have seen votes that have been thoroughly undemocratic. The comparison to voter registration was general - if people haven't bothered to participate, they don't really have a leg to stand on. I have played very little if any part in the process. My main grievance is that everything is taking so long, but I accept that since I've had no part in the process of setting the timescales, I'll just have to live with it.

Weren't you at one point going around saying WAAAAAAAAAAH I TRACED FROM NEARMAP I WON'T BE ALLOWED TO MAP ANYMORE WAAAAAAAAAAH? That's rather more drastic than just saying "Oh my, some of the features I have added will have to be deleted."

So it looks like maybe we lose some data somewhere. OH SHIT THE SKY IS FALLING IN WE'RE ALL DOING TO DIE IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. Data is the product. Like all businesses, sometimes you have to write off some stock. Thankfully, we still have the means of production.

Find out who got agreement to allow us to trace CC-BY-SA data came at least a full year after the first hints that a change might have been on the cards. Go bitch to them for having allowed you to waste hundreds of hours tracing stuff that we might have had to get rid of anyway.

"noexit=yes"? Seriously? "barrier=gate" will do. Maybe "locked=yes" or "access=no", but not "noexit".

also, "Barangay Hall" iff that's its correct name in the local language. Otherwise, that should be in name:en with the appropriate local language going in name=

"noexit" should potentially represent one and only one thing - a sign on the ground that tells you that there is not a through route along the adjacent way. Occasionally, these signs do appear on roads that aren't cul-de-sacs, but then that's why we have the "destination" access value. Ideally, we should not be adding machine-readable tags to represent calculable characteristics. It should be plainly obvious to a routing engine that there is no advance from a cul-de-sac (for at least some mode of transport). In the case of nearby nodes, add a note to the node indicating that mappers shouldn't join them, and hopefully the people editing in the area will read it and take heed. Machine-readable tags are of little use for issues which will inevitable require human attention. Certainly I remove "noexit" anywhere I come across them, and replace them with something more suitable.

Nice writing, but faulty analogy is faulty. Nobody has threatened to hurt the dog. A more accurate analogy would be that the dog has a mild skin condition. The hair must be kept trimmed back in one particular area to enable treatment, with its old cut, hair is growing there, while the new cut would have shorter hair there, making treatment easier. But the condition is mild - while not life-threatening, it occasionally causes pain for the dog when people try to photograph it, and nobody really knows how to keep it comfortable when a TV news crew shows up.

In such circumstances, I think it's entirely reasonable for those that prolong the dog's suffering to be held at fault, particularly if they're going around trying to scare other people by claiming that the dog isn't suffering any discomfort, or claiming that the cure is worse than the disease.

@devonshire: From what I can gather, most complaints have been resolved informally, meaning without the need to resort to legal action. For most, this has been a relief, because there's no certainty as to how any such action would turn out. The one thing we do know for certain is that if the violator is in the US and has rendered their own map from our data, we'd have no chance under CC-BY-SA.

@stevage: "Dismissing the complaints of "the Australians", who will lose vast amounts of data (myself, hundreds of hours of work) as "FUDing trolls" is not good faith."
1. Some seem to think that having traced from NearMap means they can't agree to contribute under the new terms. They're idiots for thinking it, and even bigger idiots for ignoring all attempts to correct them.
2. The main reason you're losing hundreds of hours of work is that some idiot decided to negotiate an agreement on CC-BY-SA long after steps were afoot to make a change. That's like buying new furniture for your home to match the decor when you're about to move out.

As for the suggestion that these people aren't FUDing, I defy you to present a single cogent argument from the likes of 80n or JohnSmith that wasn't FUD.