On 06/05/2018 08:17, Ilya Zverev wrote:
I am well aware that none of you want to have any imports to OSM.
That simply isn't true. I've personally checked and added data as part
of your "Shell" import. The problems raised with that import and even
more so with this one have been all about quality, not whether in the
abstract data should be imported at all (see e.g. "Data for Iceland
seems outdated. We are not willing to accept it" just that someone
posted here just last night).
As you know, the imports validator is no editor. The data is supplied
by a third party along with a full permission to use the data. Any
input in the validator only restricts which features and their
attributes are NOT imported.
That's simply not true. Let's think about the process for a second:
1) A user of your "validation" site sees an example navads entry. It's
chosen randomly for them; they will likely have no local knowledge.
2) They press the GSV button, see that it's present there, and then
click "Good" to "validate" it in your import.
3) Repeat from (1) above.
How is this process _not_ using Google Street View to decide which items
are "good" to import?
Could you please explain, why the DWG considers it a terms violation?
The very first point of
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms is "1. We
respect the intellectual property rights of others and we need to be
able to respond to any objections by intellectual property owners. " and
goes on to explain exactly what that means.
You're well aware of all this as you've been part of the community long
enough to understand it (you were even on the OSMF board in 2015/2016).
It looks like you're simply trying to "pull a fast one" here - adding
GSV validation to your site, hoping no one who realises that it's a
problem will notice.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
