Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Greg Troxel]

Minh Nguyen  writes:

> For what it's worth, the argument about transparency would probably be
> more effective if it were actually an upfront expectation that applies
> to everyone. As it is, anyone could simply set source=survey or
> local_knowledge on their changeset and call it a day.
>
> Unless I take the time to take more polished photos along my daily
> walk and upload them to Wikimedia Commons or Flickr with the correct
> metadata, my photos are copyrighted, all rights reserved, as
> unpublished works. The same goes with my field notes, which I've long
> deleted as soon as I finish mapping, never to be recovered by a
> fact-checker. Sometimes I'm left wondering if I made a typo until I
> return to the spot.
>
> We could ask if the honor code should apply to such a prolific editing
> team. But do we actually have a problem with Lyft fabricating edits? I
> haven't seen evidence of that; it would be quite surprising for a
> company so invested in our project.

I don't mean to imply that Lyft is adding fake data.

Sure, I get it that individual people do not document their photos and
paper notes.  But those are individual people with their own notes, not
an organized/paid edit backed by a large organization.  For an
individual, it's "I saw stuff and too pictures probably recently".  My
point is really that organized editing, paid editing, automated edits,
etc. should have a higher bar to basically document what they are doing.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 9:00 PM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Vào lúc 07:11 2022-10-30, Greg Troxel đã viết:
> > But then the company doing the editing should document which company's
> > imagery and which revision year they are using.   Things should be as
> > transparent as possible, and this doesn't feel that way.
>
> We could ask if the honor code should apply to such a prolific editing
> team. But do we actually have a problem with Lyft fabricating edits? I
> haven't seen evidence of that; it would be quite surprising for a
> company so invested in our project.
>

I have to say, I'm pretty unconcerned with abstract notions of
"transparency" here, as the entire project essentially works on the honor
system.  What I am concerned about is, if an editor is using an imagery
source that a random mapper can't access, they ought to at least indicate
the age of that imagery, to assist the next mapper that looks at the edit,
to understand why an edit may appear different from the current publicly
available imagery.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 07:11 2022-10-30, Greg Troxel đã viết:

But then the company doing the editing should document which company's
imagery and which revision year they are using.   Things should be as
transparent as possible, and this doesn't feel that way.


There was a recent subthread on this issue on the tagging mailing list 
too. I recently asked Lyft about the vintage and they said the 
street-level imagery they map from is mostly less than six months old, 
which editor-layer-index can't compete with. They expressed openness to 
sharing more details whenever there's a debate about something specific. 
I'll link the start of the mailing list discussion here so I don't have 
to repeat myself. ;-)


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-October/066080.html

For what it's worth, the argument about transparency would probably be 
more effective if it were actually an upfront expectation that applies 
to everyone. As it is, anyone could simply set source=survey or 
local_knowledge on their changeset and call it a day.


Unless I take the time to take more polished photos along my daily walk 
and upload them to Wikimedia Commons or Flickr with the correct 
metadata, my photos are copyrighted, all rights reserved, as unpublished 
works. The same goes with my field notes, which I've long deleted as 
soon as I finish mapping, never to be recovered by a fact-checker. 
Sometimes I'm left wondering if I made a typo until I return to the spot.


We could ask if the honor code should apply to such a prolific editing 
team. But do we actually have a problem with Lyft fabricating edits? I 
haven't seen evidence of that; it would be quite surprising for a 
company so invested in our project.


(Meanwhile, the U.S. community has had to spend quite a bit of energy 
following up on mappers who profit from mapping on NFT-based games, some 
of whom copy from Google Maps but lie about local knowledge.)


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Greg Troxel]

Darafei Praliaskouski via talk  writes:

> This is okay. You still have the access to the reality to check if the edit
> matches the reality.
>
> The core reason why companies can't share the imagery is that satellite
> imagery providers often put a seat license on the imagery, with "publicly
> available" costing ten times as much as "this specific person will extract
> the features" (they can't sell it anymore after that, and other times'
> images in the area too). The best you can ask for is the scene number and
> provider name to buy the same image yourself, and there's also no
> requirement to know it.
>
> (If an organization has an image and does have the license to share it and
> open it up, get it uploaded on OpenAerialMap if not maintaining your own
> imagery collection).

But then the company doing the editing should document which company's
imagery and which revision year they are using.   Things should be as
transparent as possible, and this doesn't feel that way.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Darafei Praliaskouski via talk]

This is okay. You still have the access to the reality to check if the edit
matches the reality.

The core reason why companies can't share the imagery is that satellite
imagery providers often put a seat license on the imagery, with "publicly
available" costing ten times as much as "this specific person will extract
the features" (they can't sell it anymore after that, and other times'
images in the area too). The best you can ask for is the scene number and
provider name to buy the same image yourself, and there's also no
requirement to know it.

(If an organization has an image and does have the license to share it and
open it up, get it uploaded on OpenAerialMap if not maintaining your own
imagery collection).


On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 1:02 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Concerning this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436
>
> Changeset comment:
>
> added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery
>
> Editing organization's follow on comment:
> "Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but not the
> general public"
>
> Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community should
> have access in order to verify and build on these edits.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mike
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Simon Poole]

Am 27.10.2022 um 06:17 schrieb Michael Collinson:
and note that Bing imagery is provided to us on the same basis - for 
use in OSM but not otherwise.


Mike


Bing imagery is available for inspection to everybody, for use in OSM 
terms are relaxed that would otherwise prohibit tracing etc.


Not comparable to not having access to the source at all, in this case 
we don't even know if the Lyft employee is referring to street level 
images (which might actually need processing before release), or 
aerial/sat imagery.


Simon



On 2022-10-27 00:08, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Thompson  
wrote:


Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436

Changeset comment:

added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery

Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but
not the general public"

Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community
should have access in order to verify and build on these edits.

I look at it as if they were using local knowledge. For example, If I 
walk downtown and take pictures of business doors to capture address, 
name, and hours for use in updating OSM but don't upload those pics - 
I consider that acceptable.


For Lyft to make their imagery public they would have to insure that 
nothing private, such as faces, license plates, etc. I'm sure they 
don't want the added cost required make them public.


Clifford

--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Michael Collinson]

and note that Bing imagery is provided to us on the same basis - for use 
in OSM but not otherwise.


Mike

On 2022-10-27 00:08, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436

Changeset comment:

added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery

Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but
not the general public"

Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community
should have access in order to verify and build on these edits.

I look at it as if they were using local knowledge. For example, If I 
walk downtown and take pictures of business doors to capture address, 
name, and hours for use in updating OSM but don't upload those pics - 
I consider that acceptable.


For Lyft to make their imagery public they would have to insure that 
nothing private, such as faces, license plates, etc. I'm sure they 
don't want the added cost required make them public.


Clifford

--
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Concerning this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436
>
> Changeset comment:
>
> added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery
>
> Editing organization's follow on comment:
> "Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but not the
> general public"
>
> Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community should
> have access in order to verify and build on these edits.
>
> I look at it as if they were using local knowledge. For example, If I walk
downtown and take pictures of business doors to capture address, name, and
hours for use in updating OSM but don't upload those pics - I consider that
acceptable.

For Lyft to make their imagery public they would have to insure that
nothing private, such as faces, license plates, etc. I'm sure they don't
want the added cost required make them public.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk