On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote: > More philosophically the idea of someone claiming copyright on walking > routes seems completely at odds with the nature of countryside walking, > which to my mind has similar free and open values to open source software > and data (the landowners and their "Keep out" signs being similar to > proprietary licencing)
And pragmatically, there are real problems when an organisation that establishes a route also seeks to derive income from selling information about it. It seems logical, until your realise that the organisation's two goals (promoting a route by disseminating information about it; and gaining income to achieve the primary goal) are completely contrary to each other. The "Tasmanian Trail" is completely obscure because the only information about it is in a mail-order paperback. To walk/ride the Great Dividing Trail requires paying for four really crappy maps. (Hopefully in two weeks' time it will be 90% OSM'ed.) Rail Trails Australia was heading in a similar direction, but I helped convince them that sharing information about the trails *is* their mission. Maybe the FFRP could be persuaded eventually? Convince them to give up claims of copyright on the route geography, and focus on prose descriptions, subjective details etc? Steve _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
