All, Your constructive input is appreciated. I'll be bak in a couple days with revisions after I've incorporated address points into the workflow (Thanks Brian).
So far a great discussion thread. Best, On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:37 AM, stevea <[email protected]> wrote: > 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<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 understanding (by Palo Alto that their Terms are outdated and not binding) 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<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us> > -- John Novak 585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676) http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/ OSM ID:oldtopos OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos
_______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
