tldr; nobody pays for editors and more than automated proofreading anymore for any form of printed matter.
Used to be worthwile that unintentional ambiguities and errors can be cleared up or left in, when at least a second pair of eyes goes over a text. This should help the reader not take anything away from the authors intent.
Because hosting with some other entity is not what you want for a regional focus where you want to set your own relevance criteria and licensing agreements ideally.
Germany and Austria have quite a bit of local Wikis with more than 20 active editors.
Usually as some entity adjacent to the cities archive or run by some local foundation.
Filtering is all nice, but for a truly local wiki you should get different relevance criteria and different licensing criteria, to be able to negotiate citing local more recent sources.
In some ways I wish that sample size and delta were manditory parts of these sorts of headlines.
Like "In a study of 900,000 people, those that drank their coffee were 5% more likely to develop esophageal cancer".
At very least it'd stop BS like "In a 10 rat study, peppermint oil cured cancer in 10% of the rats" or "Peppermint oil could cure cancer!" as a lot of scientific reporters would phrase it.
A computer generated 3-dimensional map display includes a reference icon identifying an observation point in the geographic area defined by the map, the map being presented on a curved surface which extends from a first plane to a second plane which is substantially orthogonal to the first plane. The observation point is located in the first plane. The display is configured such that the height of landmarks and buildings in a defined foreground of the reference icon are presented normal to the first plane, the height of land marks and buildings at a defined far distance are presented normal to the second plane and the height of land marks and buildings in a defined middle ground are presented normal to the non-linear portion of the curved surface. The geographic area represented can be translated along the curved surface to provide a perception that the reference icon is roaming through the displayed geographic area.
By no other than "Here and There" Schulze and Webb Ltd later rebranded to BERG.
The generic use case of a multiperspective camera method for that was arguable covered in a 1997 Disney paper latest.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I haven't looked at the pointed site yet but will do once I get some time on my hands. Maps end up nerd-sniping me.
The offset also forces the gore to be bent in two directions, so it’s also bit tricky, and makes the gore stiffer then it needs to be, dampening the paper there certainly helps.
Also I don't get the point why you would want them easily scrapeable to begin with.
If you have eyes to read and can walk across YOUR neighborhoods, you would have eventually seen one. I thought that was the whole point? They are not exactly hidden.
I find those public bookcase incidental low barrier offerings to a reading exprience you just stumble upon, nothing you would seek out on a map.
Why would you want to have more people from anywhere else possibly raid them for anything useful?
This way nobody is inclined to put anything worthwhile in there if it just ends up outside of their communities. Not that I'm in general pessimistic, just would like to know what is gained by putting the exact location into a map and not just have a list of neigborhoods with a book corner and optional photo on that neigborhood level, if people want to network around them.
Those people traveling to them are probably just as likely to put something in as a more local passer by. And I'm not sure why I would care that someone the next suburb over read my book. As long as someone is enjoying it, that's the whole point of donating.
Recently it's seemed like (very roughly) half the Little Free Libraries I see aren't in OSM.
I sometimes edit OSM, so I'm wondering whether any public bookshelf omissions are intentional, and adding the shelves would be unwelcome by the people running them.
I see OSM as a mapping application. It is in the real world, publicly visible for a long period of time, and there is no law preventing sharing the information (like military stuff) it can be in the mapping application (decide what is relevant enough is another story).
I would not include the wishes of the people into it, because there are various groups that might have strange ideas (dunno, like only churches of some type should be shown; or no shops of a certain kind because it hurts my feelings, etc.).
I personally would not like any edits that advances the wishes of "any" group of people (like removing features). I do not like all things that exists on maps, but I will not remove them because of my feelings.
The few places I have seen book nooks like this, they end filled up with religious literature which is usually not the intent of the person who started it.
reply