Simply add odbl=clean to the way, after verifying it and you'll be fine. A few days later, or maybe even the next day it won't show up as problematic anymore. OSM wants to be extra careful, regarding copyright laws, and we always have been. So we'll also have to be when we want to change the license. I consider it a good exercise in fact checking and even if we have to drop a tag here and there, somebody will come along eventually to add it from their own surveys.
Polyglot 2011/12/28 <fk270...@fantasymail.de> > Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in > red on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. > These streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs > to add the same tags: > highway=residential > name=Parkallee > maxspeed=30 > oneway=yes > surface=cobblestone > lit=yes > There is no creativity in that, just the luck of being the first editor. > In 2007, an anonymous editor was the lucky first one who noticed a street > sign that has existed for almost 100 years now. In 2011, I have added some > tags to v3. If I "created" (produced) a new way with a new number, but the > same tags, it would be considered CLEAN. If I kept the old way for > honouring history without legal obligation (as its tags are not covered by > copyright), the same way with the same tags and the same last editor would > be considered DIRTY. > > There is no legal obligation to give credit to first-time fact collectors, > but there is also no legal requirement not to do it. Copyright only exists > on fictional or very creative tags, not on facts like street names. The > only logical argumentation how a way can be affected by copyright is to > declare it "fictional" or "supposed to be fictional" or "unsure to be > factual". However, I would be surprised if anybody was really able to find > a fictional way among 2.8 million ways uploaded by decliners. > > I would like to tag these ways with odbl=fact in order to indicate that > there is no other possibility to tag them than with their actual name and > their actual road condition. The LWG may decide whether to abridge history > or not, but there is absolutely no reason to remove tags describing the > factual road condition. > > Before a license change happens, IMHO the LWG and all participants should > try to avoid unfitting terms like "tag creator" for those who have just > added a well-known street name. "Tag attestor" would be more appropriate to > describe that mappers are just copying facts from reality. First-time > attestors do not have priority over late attestors and they cannot claim > any copyright on facts copied from reality. > > Quality would increase if each mapper was able to confirm that a way > uploaded by other mappers exactly fits reality. Famous places like Broadway > in New York or Leicester Square in London could have thousands of > "attestors" while local paths may have just one or two "attestors". Of > course, ways with many "attestors" should not be deleted even if they were > attested first by a anonymous or deceased mapper. It takes some time to > implement these ATTEST or CONFIRM buttons, but I would be happy if they > were implemented long before a detrimental data loss happens. > > Cheers, > FK270673 > -- > NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! > Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
