Yes, well, that does seem to be the consensus, though you are the first to articulate sufficiently clearly to give it the force of a business rule.

ok - so we can see what you've written.

Could you drop me a note about the people you approached and their responses (or lack of response so far)? Alternatively, could you update the page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL ? Thanks.

I've not really seen the environment running "cantankerous/cancerous recently", at least in the areas I work.

my feeling is that 'farmyard' would be for a working farm. I would suggest using a 'site' type relation and include all elements of the site you've mentioned.

One thing to consider in this space is better discrimination among keys and tags which have passed through the proposal-voting-acceptance procedure vs. those which are widely used and have not gone through the procedure vs. those which have utility but are not widely used. I think it would be useful to have a color coded banner or icon associated with pages which indicate the status.

The aggregation of small bits into a larger page can be done by page transclusion, if that is supported by the mediawiki version implemented here. Also, could use section headers and direct to #-tagged sections via redirect.

In the larger cemeteries, some of the monuments are well delineated in satellite imagery and the boundary may be visible if it is fenced. You could do a GPS coordinate collection for the aerial imagery visible elements and use these anchor points to roughly position groups of plots.

Congratulations. That's a major accomplishment.

You should take a look at ShareMap.org. The resource on this site is still in beta release, but the developers are very receptive to input (I was informed recently that my feedback on a feature had allowed decision making among multiple development priorities to focus on that which I had highlighted).

I've thought a bit on this myself. Aerial imagery is in most cases not of sufficiently high resolution to trace individual burials (though mausoleums and crypts can be mapped) and GPS straight from the commercial devices is not generally precise enough to map reliably. If you had a plot map from a cemetery conservator who agreed to release the plot map by a license compatible with OSM, then this would be the best bet for getting individual plots mapped as objects. The plot map could (in principle) be rendered as a shape file and imported. What I've taken to doing is to try and pare down a cemetery into small enough units which are naturally separable such that a person looking for a particular memorial need not hunt long within the narrowly specified region before finding their target. An example of this is at http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Interments_in_Lombardy_Cemetery%2C_Bellefonte%2C_New_Castle%2C_Delaware%2C_United_States ... but I'm thinking on how to refine this so it is more straightforward.

Are you saying that it is pointless in the LONG term or the SHORT term? From your description it would seem that the Service remains OK to support the current re-licensing edits, but not necessarily for long term license management.

When the licensing change notification came about, I immediately said 'sure, ok' and agreed. This was because a) I contribute (here and on several other collaborative sites) assuming or specifically stating that everything I do is in the public domain and only restricted by the platform on which I contribute and b) the Foundation appears to be sincere about its primary mission statement ... to provide maps which are free from many of the strictures which inhibit reuse of other published map resources. OpenStreetMap is neither perfect nor perfectly free, but it is a far sight better than the alternatives. This is why I will continue to contribute to OSM and why I walked away from Wikimapia. If you do not believe that the Foundation is sincere in trying to abide by its mission statement and believe instead that it is on a covert mission to get all it can for free and then exploit it for riches, then you are contributing to the wrong resource.

There are cases where cities provide wifi ... this isn't very common in the US, though there have been proposals (e.g in Philadelphia) which could lead to it. Is there an accommodation for public wifi points which are not associated with individual businesses? <== and there are a heck of a lot of those, yes.

Interesting ... can you provide some examples of the spam because I've not come across it myself. Also, is it in the map or in the wiki? Thanks for educating me and the rest of the readership.

I will not be joining this, but I think that this is an excellent request, focused and well scoped.

In addition to the potential reasons behind the edits noted above is that you and the editor might be working from different data and therefore each believe they are right. That requires communication to resolve. Don't assume vandalism as the default.

Yes, Nominatim has not been updated for months, unfortunately.

I've posted a message to the talk email group to highlight this to a broader audience ==> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-November/060723.html

Are we really to the point that edits need to be backed up by photographic proof? Afterall, c2r indicated "survey" as the source and (s)he has been involved in the project since 2007. It would be different if c2r where a new editor and started on a street name editing spree (vandal behavior).