On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data > >> isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut > >> instinct. what do you do? > >> > > If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing. > > > > But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing > grounds > > in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my > > scenario. > > are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the > ground" rule? ;-) The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs. > > it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have > been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a > way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, > while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that > data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. > > I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk