Hello John:
The Terms of Use are either compatible with ODBL or not. If you
wanted to spend some expensive time, you might get an IP lawyer to
help you determine that. Better, end run that: you need not accept
these Terms. Present Palo Alto with a counter-offer and some news.
You might read up the LA Times article
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/08/local/la-me-adv-map-ruling-20130709
on the recent California Supreme Court case regarding digital mapping
files being public records. There was also a similar case in Santa
Clara County in 2010 (2011?). I am not an attorney, just a Citizen.
Politely request the data from Palo Alto as public records,
essentially rejecting the stated Terms. Together with the California
Public Records Act (which compels data produced by public trustees to
be released for only actual copying costs -- unless they meet certain
qualified legal exceptions like personnel records) the records should
be yours without strings attached. For digital records, copying
costs often cost just a pittance or are free if you offer a USB drive
or blank DVD-ROM media, though since they seem to be already
published on the web, it is the discussion and understanding (by Palo
Alto that their Terms are outdated and not binding) that are
important. If they hand you a CD-ROM with properly requested public
records, there can be no Terms: they are already public records, and
were just handed to you as such!
Reminded of Palo Alto's public duty to offer you/us our (not their)
data, the records are (according to the Court's decision) yours
already without those terms. Do a little research, and/or just ask:
you'll discover that when worded carefully, politely and correctly
these strategies can and do work. It may be helpful if a person who
lives in the City of Palo Alto (a beneficiary of that public trust)
makes the formal CPRA request, but I don't think that is strictly
required, just a suggestion.
This is a powerful time for citizen requests of geographic data from
public trustees in California. The data are ours, especially as you
make them yours. Now that you have identified these records, enjoy
them under your terms, not artificially-created Terms that appear to
me to be an improper taking by the City. Take back what's yours.
You could pony up some lawyerly fees that set somebody back too much,
and play a rich game with expensive imagined rights-dickering. But I
don't recommend that, it can get expensive. As Palo Alto's
insistence upon such Terms fades away in light of the Court's
decision, such sand-castles-in-the-air will fall away eventually on
their own. Just lean against them gently and watch them crumble.
They have ten days to produce records (especially when specifically
identified) once you start the CPRA request clock.
I'm also glad to hear of the business names, apartment names, et
cetera. Good show, everybody!
If I had one suggestion to make about such a manual conflation of
imported data it would be to break apart the large .osm file your
workflow has created into 500 kilobyte to 2 megabyte chunks, arranged
geographically in an easy-to-identify grid or snail (like
arrondissements in Paris) pattern. These can be given out to
multiple people, and each person checks another person's work before
it gets uploaded. Yes, you can do this with as few as two people
(and I have done so, with the Monterey County FMMP data), but it is
better with three or more. It doesn't work well with one, unless you
have (as you are requesting) a QA Plan. We could work on specifics
of that in greater detail if you wish, off-list.
Regards,
SteveA
California (a great place for making geographic data-based public
records requests)
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
