Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Ian Sergeant wrote: However, if the transition happened today in Sydney, we would lose every freeway, every trunk road, every primary road, the harbour crossings, the foreshore. All the rivers. Without wishing to play down your loss at all - I wouldn't want to be an Australian OSM user at this point in time :( - I would reiterate that this is an Australia and Poland problem. The rest of the world is largely ok, and much of it is very good: there are many countries over 99% on the odbl.poole.ch lists. I can't see any way that the UMP situation in Poland is going to be resolved, so there's no advantage delaying there; better to reset and restart. So that leaves Australia. There are two questions: how to get Australia remapped to an acceptable level; and what data consumers should do. The public perception flows directly from these. You are not going to get Australia remapped any quicker by holding off on the changeover date. I generally disagree with Andrzej when he says it's better to remap from a blank slate, rather than remap in-place, but in the case of import-heavy and decliner-heavy areas like Australia and Poland, he's probably right. Assuming you're going to be using the Australian government data, which seems to be the general will of the .au community, you will find it much easier to integrate that into a post-changeover database.[1] I would gently suggest you start talking now about how you're going to do that. As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's just a collective work.) cheers Richard [1] That is, unless someone wants to revert the ABS2006 import _now_, reimport, then replay any subsequent edits onto the reimported data... which is certainly a possibility and which I'm slightly surprised no-one in .au is doing. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-What-happens-on-April-1-tp5543035p5546893.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 8 March 2012 20:36, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Assuming you're going to be using the Australian government data, which seems to be the general will of the .au community, you will find it much easier to integrate that into a post-changeover database. I would gently suggest you start talking now about how you're going to do that. I don't see the Australian government boundaries as relevant. They are only boundaries, are generally poor quality, and many have been removed already without being missed. Some have been useful for adding value when they happen to align with other geographical features (rivers, streams, railways, coastline, etc) but this has always been a manual effort more akin to tracing than importing. Just importing the boundary data again is as simple as it is useless. As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's just a collective work.) Do we really want to force this kind of workaround downstream? To start cutting up and merging the planet with old and new? The transition likely won't be an overnight exercise in any event. There's lots of data to process. A phased approach is certainly far preferable in my mind to an osmosis merge. As Nick has pointed out, there are probably areas even within Australia that could and should transition right now with no issue. You can look at the raw data to see that the remapping has been successful in Australia so far, with the pace accelerating as the tools have become available to identify tainted data. There isn't really evidence in that I've seen of people holding back at this stage waiting for transition. The main issue is resources, time and the availability of tools. There simply hasn't been the time since the tools have become available to complete what can be done in many areas with the resources we have left. I appreciate that much of the rest of the world is in better shape. Lets face the fact that the Australian OSM community has been splintered by this exercise and we've lost many good people, good resources, and good maps. I'm also a bit afraid if we stomp too hard on what's left, it may just stop moving. Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 8 March 2012 23:57, Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Would it be an idea to invite international mappers to remotely remap Australia (or Poland) by, ... I believe I have issued such an invitation. Initially, there are large parts of the coast and significant coastal waterways, lakes, islands, and other features, etc that are still nonCT that could benefit from the assistance of careful mappers from around the world. These are clearly visible in OSM Inspector. There are historical and other resources to assist in remapping these (in particular naming bays and rivers) which I can give pointers to. For those more experienced in remapping/osm, the availability of hi-res and well aligned maps in urban areas a few years ago in au resulted in lots of aerial imagery based tweaks. Roads were split extensively to add roundabouts, traffic slands and speed zones and remapped. These are easy to recognise once you start looking, and there often is good data (well, better than nothing data) to be rescued in the history. ost transition its going to be harder to locate the relevant change sets. Assistance with these sort of tasks would free up local resources to do the local street mapping. Ian. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes: If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work, would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example) use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple of days? More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation, using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey? If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly reviewable. Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot be done without a 2/3 vote. If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights, then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM. All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in parallel with ODbL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Would it be an idea to invite international mappers to remotely remap Australia (or Poland) by, for example, tracing side streets from photographs? It could well have a stabilising effect that avoids any concer about armchair mapping damaging communities. I for one would certainly welcome that. I have no concerns about armchair mapping at all. We have good aerial imagery in the major cities, and in plenty of places in between. In many cases I've worked on, major roads have sections (eg, one lane of a two lane freeway) that will disappear, and sections that will remain. So it would be perfectly legitimate to delete the former, and use information from the latter (names, route numbers etc) to recreate them, without needing any local knowledge. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's just a collective work.) Would it be possible to get the Mapnik rendering on openstreetmap.org to do this? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's own surveying. I'd be very very surprised if let's say any new company in the maps business doing their survey of roads would not be doing it based on other providers maps. They'd send out cars with GPSs to just randomly drive around the country?? Unlikely. Rather, they'd buy a Garmin/TomTom/WhatNot and drive all the roads on that, make their own notes of the road classifications, etc details, and build their map data based on that. It's only(?) crowd-sourced community-created maps like OSM, Waze, etc that have (some) patience in building their map road by road (and even these do imports -- and keep eyes open when looking at other maps). Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here? Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:40:41 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes: If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work, would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example) use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple of days? More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation, using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey? If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly reviewable. Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot be done without a 2/3 vote. If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights, then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM. All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in parallel with ODbL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
jaakkoh wrote Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's own surveying. Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a large scale with our own data. We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license. jaakkoh wrote Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here? Well, perhaps we do need to actually define the term much better to be able to judge if that is a violation of copyright / the license. If their definition of verification e.g does not go beyond the definition of verification of CC-BY-SA / ODbL data, which has thus presumably been deemed acceptable, then it wouldn't be an extra grant (which wouldn't really be possible) but simply a clarification as various of the other community guidelines that have been defined. If in turn this would lead to UMP accepting to allow to keep their data, that would be a major win for all! Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5549631.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
