Ben Last wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. We don't want to put barriers in the way of an average user (and I use that term to explicitly distinguish between the average map site user and a mapping enthusiast) making simple corrections such as adding address information or naming un-named streets. In particular, we don't want to bounce them to the OSM site to register (and face yet another set of terms and conditions), when they're already registered on our site.
I see your pain, but ease of getting map data into OSM doesn't trump concerns of legality and ownership of data. Otherwise I'd have introduced a Google aerial background into Potlatch like a shot. ;)
As Frederik says, Mapzen - designed, like your editor, to lower the barrier to entry - is an instructive example. The OAuth support was introduced exactly so that other sites could provide OSM editors, whether Mapzen, the mooted OpenCycleMap editor, or whatever.
In particular ODbL+CT will require a contractual relationship (i.e. the contributor terms) between OSMF and the user. If you are not exposing the user to the sign-up process, they are not agreeing to this contract.
Your lawyers can of course find a way which satisfies them (and you) that there is sufficient agreement between your user terms and CC-BY-SA/ODbl+CT, but for any novel way of getting data into OSM, the onus is on the importer to satisfy _OSM_, not just themselves. That's the conversation we need to have here, and potentially also that you need to have with OSMF. (I would suggest that, as a courtesy, you drop OSMF a line and ask them to consider the matter.)
My contention is that the only fair way to do it without imposing any risk on OSM is to require an explicit PD/CC0-type waiver from your users. For trivial edits made by a simple editor, this is probably good practice as they're unlikely to be substantial anyway.
As per previously cited blog post (http://www.systemeD.net/blog/?p=100) I'm of the opinion that tracing from aerial imagery does not carry through any IP from the photography. It's up to the provider of the imagery whether they want to impose contractual restrictions. So the ball's in your court, really. :)
> I hope by now that many OSMers will appreciate that we continue > to do a lot of support OSM, and that we do take the integrity and > reliability of the data very seriously. Absolutely. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
