On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
All that said, does data.gov.au actually have any geospatial datasets
anymore? Seems as if that has moved to http://www.nationalmap.gov.au
Yes. http://www.nationalmap.gov.au is a graphical frontend for data.gov.au.
>
> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
> > you are assuming that
> > data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
> > everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
>
> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
> data.gov.au an organization has to
> All that said, does data.gov.au actually have any geospatial
> datasets anymore? Seems as if that has moved to
> http://www.nationalmap.gov.au
For Queensland, all geospatial data is now available from:
http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/
On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
you are assuming that
data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
data.gov.au an organization has to register
On 12.03.2018 21:28, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 12/03/18 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>> - has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the
>> explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?
>
> All you need is a basic understanding of the Australian system of
> government. A
On 12/03/18 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:
- has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the
explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?
All you need is a basic understanding of the Australian system of
government. A federal bureaucrat does not have the authority to make
I’ve looked through a number of the “open data policy” documents published by
different Queensland government departments, and I’ve noticed that a lot of
them contain references to the “Open Data Institute Queensland”. I’ve searched
for their website, and it’s here: https://theodi.org.au/
Cheers Simon, that makes sense. I have to defer to those who have contacted
DNRM via private email whether DNRM have made any explicit remarks over the
previous permission. I was initially getting the feeling from some comments
that there was some legal evidence, but I've not seen anything. I
Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I
> just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future
> after thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done
> this each time this has come up in
Hey Joel, Jonathon, great to see your efforts to try to get this through.
As an aside I'm working on cataloguing Australian open data potentially
useful for OSM with the goal to get the OSMF waiver completed for them all.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue
In cases
Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I just
wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after
thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each
time this has come up in the past.
I've made your suggested change to the page
Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>
> Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for
> the CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current
> ones and avoid speculating on internal government arrangements way back.
>
That should have been:
..
Please folks, don't try to a) make this more complicated than it already
is, b) try to undo stuff that is long done.
I would consider the wording change on the contributors page to be not a
good idea (or even factual), and would suggest that it be changed from
"The explicit permission granted
> Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
This is also why I added a heading for the "data.gov.au" text, it was
sitting directly under the "Commonwealth of Australia" previously, the
Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was
imported back when we had permission right?
On 12/03/18 17:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I started looking at what we'd
have to "redact" and it is very mixed up with data from DCDB and survey, so
we'd loose heaps.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Natural+Resources+and+Mines#values
Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
this discussion.
With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
> The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by the
Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there
We need the right form of words. I completely agree we should not rely on
data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.
However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification
to go down the redaction path for existing data sets. We were given
permission by one arm of the
Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can of
worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
OSM
19 matches
Mail list logo
