If you find a bug and can find a way to reproduce it consistently, please post it on osm.wiki/Potlatch_2/Bugs .

CT 1.2 revised is compatible with the OS OpenData licence. It will not get wiped.

"the Flash API", I mean, not "the same Flash API". (JOSM uses the JavaScript API.)

JOSM and Potlatch do not use the same Yahoo API. Potlatch is written in Flash therefore uses the same Flash API. There is AFAIK no easy way to change this in JOSM. There is also no reason to change it, as we'll have Bing imagery in a week or two which is better resolution than Yahoo's imagery anyway.

You quoted John Whelan's mail which was talking about the "should we go ahead with this?" vote put to OSMF members (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000751.html), and equated it with the number of mappers who have signed up to ODbL+CT - entirely different.

As for the "or" point, do you think the same when CC-BY-SA says "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License"? That the "or" will be decided by courts and lawyers, and they might force you to include the whole licence rather than the URL?

Er, 55 a day, not 130 in 12 weeks. http://neis-one.org/2010/11/23/short-update/

About as close to the truth as your assertion that people creating an .img Garmin map would have to host the entire planet file, which can be trivially disproved by actually reading ODbL. You're not very good with the whole "facts" thing, are you?

Please don't use relations for this. It almost killed the server yesterday morning when someone did that for Russian coverage and lots of people started downloading it. Please just document it on the wiki like everyone else does.

Brilliant - have often walked through Brecon (we go on holiday to Talybont regularly) and figured it ought to be mapped properly but not really been able to convince SWMBO that we should spend some hours of our holiday doing it. :) Look forward to seeing the result.

> The more text a licence have the more shitty it is.

Hope to see you campaigning for OSM to switch to the WTFPL then.

Please do not trace from Bing yet. We don't know whether we have access to all the imagery. We don't know whether we need to display any attribution in the editor. We don't know whether we're allowed raw tile access or have to use an API. We don't know whether we're required to add a source= tag and if so, what. Please just wait a few days while Bing's lawyers explain what's required.

Peut-etre nous pouvons creer une version «offline» de Potlatch 2 (avec Adobe AIR) qui pourrait utiliser les images SPOT. C'est dommage qu'on doit utiliser JOSM. ;)

Wikimapia shows why this sort of thing should be treated with great caution. Users can come to value their own "score" over and above the real aim, of making a better map. They then carry out edits that improve their score but don't improve the map (in fact, often worsen it). In OSM, this might be tracing areas which they've never visited and will never do so, or making questionable bulk changes.

We want to encourage people to get out there and map. We don't want to encourage people to change for the sake of change.

So if such a system were implemented, I'd very strongly argue that points should only be earned for areas where the user had uploaded GPS tracks. Such a system would reward surveying effort, and not armchair mapping.

You should post this to the international mailing lists, too.

Sure you can export tracks from an eTrex H. You just need the eTrex-to-serial lead (available cheap on eBay) and then, possibly, a serial to USB converter. gpsbabel will do everything you need at the client end.

Absolutely do not create imaginary cities in the main OpenStreetMap database. People use this map for navigation. It won't be much use if you've drawn a city where there isn't one.

If you really want to, you could use the test server at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ . But bear in mind this may be wiped at any time.

The eTrex 'click' detection is very sensitive to movement. If you try really hard not to move the rocker in any direction while clicking, but simply to press down, it'll usually work. But that's a lot harder when you're walking (or cycling).

Upload frequently. Don't do 30 minutes of changes and then upload; rather, upload every 5 minutes or so. Otherwise for large relations, in particular, the server can take so long sending the "ok" message back that Flash Player times out.

Make sure you're zoomed in a long way before trying to edit.

If you click 'Edit' when a whole city is visible, that's a lot of data to pull down from the server, and it will take a long time.

I'm hoping to come back some time next year to do York-Bridlington. But I suspect you'll have mapped the short new NR164 by then!

Where there is a dataset that supplies something that can't be practically mapped by on-the-ground survey, yes, I don't see a problem with a careful import. Generally building imports will fall into this category: there's not a whole heap of difference between importing good-quality building data and tracing it from aerial imagery.

But where imports replace on-the-ground survey, that's where the problem lies. The import surveyor will likely not have looked for the data that OSM mappers would be gathering (for example, Ordnance Survey OpenData for the UK, though excellent, doesn't include footpaths or cycleways). But because the area now looks "complete", and because it's more fun to survey virgin territory than resurvey someone else's work, the imported area will neither get the same quality of data nor attract the same community of OSM contributors.

Example: USA. Other example: the city of Worcester, UK. I and a few other contributors were slowly working on surveying this, bit by bit, to a reasonably high standard. Now some idiot has come along and traced it all from Ordnance Survey StreetView (effectively what you might call a "manual import").

The result is a carbon copy of StreetView with a load of missing streetnames, no footpaths, no amenities, and so on (osm.org/go/euwvVf2K--). How does that help anyone? The long-term quality of the OSM map has suffered for a tiny bit of short-term gain. Nothing good has been created: if people wanted StreetView, they could have just downloaded the original (under better licensing terms than OSM, too!).