11–20 of 184 posts
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world. It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world. It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.
Angry!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least until Google vandalizes it. http://www.wired.com/2012/01/osm-google-accusation/
Please don't spread this kind of FUD – even the article you linked to is much more measured. It's pretty silly to imply that there was any corporate action on behalf of Google aimed at vandalising OSM at the same time as the were sponsoring their annual conference .
Edit: I'm reminded of Thomas Schelling's notion of "incomplete antagonism" :-)
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world. It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world. It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.
Misleading the public doesn't solve the issue. I live inside the medieval walls of a historic French town and we are 'overrun' with tourists. However, despite some of them being rather inconvienient, it isn't like I have the right to shut down the street in front of my house to prevent the intrusive traffic that makes it difficult to even exit my garage. I knew about this 'issue' when I bought the house. And, even if…
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world. It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.
NIMBY psychology strikes again?
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the most recognisable landmarks in the world. It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.
Maybe it's not possible to get planning permission to build a car park because it's near a public park. It really does seem like there is an opportunity here that isn't being exploited though. Why doesn't someone start running tours up there? A couple of buses wouldn't cause a problem and there's money to be made from this.
According to the law of the state of California, all beaches are public property. Of course, this gets a bit complicated when an individual owns the land in front of the beach. The people who buy houses in Malibu would, of course, prefer to have a private beach section. So they put up gates and hire security guards (illegally), block public parking spots (either physically or by putting up counterfeit "no parking" signs), etc. They've historically gotten away with it because the enforcement agency is underfunded and the enforcement process is expensive (a separate civil lawsuit for each offender). That may change soon though:
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal-penalties-20140...