Verfication would be a process of comparing my own data (lets's call
them A) with osm, likely using some automated precess, that would
output a set of locations or areas where the maps differ more than a
given threshold (dataset B).
Legally you now have three datasets A, OSM and a derivative work
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 05:43, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
jaakkoh wrote
Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in
If we need a change to the licence wording to allow Poland to keep their
data, lets put a few words a the end of the licence to allow Poland to do
just that, and put it to vote as required in the contributor terms.
Didn't we adopt the contributor terms just so we have just this flexibility?
I
Kai Krueger kakrueger@... writes:
We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as
easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is
legal and is not covered by the
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
That's a big presumption. I would have expected that remapping would be done
as
a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA
data
at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
Isn't not looking
Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published
under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
data.
This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is)
will use it to overrun OSM...
LM_1
2012/3/9 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com:
Indeed.
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
cars/satellites out; and have the new
@openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass
jaakkoh wrote
Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's
own surveying.
Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a
Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
our data outright) would be a valid use
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:55, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a
statement?
I think OSMF should give UMP concession to use OSM data in their maps
of Poland with their current license, like this:
The OSMF acknowledges
Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions. They are
additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone
else's use of the data. However, it is not in the spirit of the
community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions -
particularly not if they
Hi,
On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Michael Collinson wrote:
- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make
such a statement?
- is it true?
- can you see any negative consequences?
I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in
which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off
Hi,
On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the
tag name (individually or for a large number
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Are you sure that this is a good idea?
Robert,
when I wrote that I
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
I did indeed mean that the edit is harmless if the *key* is not present
any more.
This will still result in some harmless edits
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However
the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that
others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if
Hi,
On 12/27/2011 09:08 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to
name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted?
Yes, if a name tag is still present in the current version of the
object then it is assumed to be dervied
On 27 December 2011 15:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Did you manage to address your example of a user
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:32:35 +0100
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
...
Activated now notified talk and talk-de lists, on both the WTFE view
and on the database accessed by plugins/license views in editors.
Bye
Frederik
On 24 December 2011 23:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds
back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now?
Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it
2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag
3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or
she does not have enough information to assert
On 25 December 2011 21:05, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +
4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices
the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having
personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
- can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
* treat any tags contributed by a
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
Nice
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present
Hi,
On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly tainted node which
has both been moved and stripped of any tainted tags would also be
considered clean. Is this so
Yes.
2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped
mike@... writes:
Any chance of you changing your decline now, that is the easiest way
of decreasing deletions?
I am still hopeful of finding a way forward that will mean the OSM
data can continue to be distributed under a licence that I would
consider free and open. Although Creative Commons or
: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:44 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org
wrote:
On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Dear All,
LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
Draft minutes are here.
I think the test must be the same as for any other data which OSMF does not have
permission to use. If a mapper added a node by copying from Google Maps, but
then another mapper moved it to a different position using a permitted data
source, is it okay to keep that node in the database?
--
Ed
2011/12/21 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:
I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be
A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between
the old one and the new one. For example, if there is already a way
on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which
is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit
your new trace. But you
Richard Weait richard@... writes:
We consider that the creation of an
object and its id to be a system action rather than individual
creative contribution.
However, 'the creation of an object and its id' never occurs by itself.
At a minimum, you create an object with id and lat/lon, and that
Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes
the same.
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a way. Not replacing it.
If you take an
On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
andrzej zaborowski balrogg@... writes:
- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
reconciling the data base?
Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
that are known to come from
Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the
Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?
Are we not talking about the following situation:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
-
Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis:
Simon Poolesimon@... writes:
In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
Simon Poole simon@... writes:
- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
some new nodes
- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes
In this
Sorry, I appreciate your taking the time to go through the arguments on this
but I think I have said all I have to say about node positions. I'll let others
decide whether what I wrote makes sense.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are
Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
mike@... writes:
2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are
+1 for both items
On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
Dear All,
LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
Draft minutes are here.
On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
Of particular interest are:
- can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of the
cases encompassed by this question : the cases where the edit is
correlated with a
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote on 21/12/2011 at 07:27:19 +1100
subject [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested :
Of particular interest are:
- can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
reconciling the data
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
Of particular interest are:
- can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of the
51 matches
Mail list logo
