Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site
Hello Frederik, OK - thanks for that. That clears things up quite nicely I think. I have too many "day job" obligations at the moment to set it up as a business, but the thought has crossed my mind for the future. Thanks, Nick On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:03 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 02.12.20 09:49, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the > > storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails. > > I think you have already done *much* more than can be expected of you. I > would have removed the data long ago. Or, if you are in a business-y > mood, offer to keep their images if they pay you some money - depending > on what their use-case and expertise is, it might be cheaper for them to > pay you than to run things themselves. If you're lucky, it pays for the > whole server and then some. > > That of course then puts you in a situation where you will have some > obligations, and you'd need to explain to them that they can't expect > you to fix a bug on Christmas Eve. Which is likely going to be ok for > them, since at the moment they rely on a service that could delete their > images for good any time ;) > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site
Hello Martn, I believe I 'probably' don't have any obligation, but I am just being cautious as we do appear to live in a very litigious world and I just want to be safe. It's a case of whether there is some automatic 'implied rights' for users when there are no terms of service. I don't have any terms of service - as a non-profit/research project it's all quite informal - just some comments that 'unsuitable' panoramas, or panoramas containing faces and license plates which are not detected by the screening software I use - may be removed. Recently (after this) I have added a comment on road panoramas being liable to be removed if unlikely to be of interest to walkers. Thanks, Nick On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > IANAL, but why do you believe you could have any obligation to host their > content on your server? > > Do you have terms of service? > > Cheers > Martin > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site
Hello everyone, Apologies - this is not directly related to OpenStreetMap itself but is related to a site of mine which uses OpenStreetMap data so I thought I'd post my question here to get opinions. I have been developing a site OpenTrailView (https://opentrailview.org) to collect 360 panoramas of walking and hiking routes. OSM data is used to connect the panoramas together. The site has always advertised itself as a site to collect panos of *walking* routes - however a company has used the site to upload a large number of panoramas of on-road routes. My problem with this is that it's using up server space on a server that I pay for out of my own money. I have contacted the company asking them if it was OK to delete their panoramas (as the content is arguably 'inappropritate' for a walking-oriented site) nd they replied to me, in a friendly and cooperative way, saying they would setup their own 'local' OpenTrailView server by November 13th. I since contacted them to confirm whether they had done this (twice) but have not heard back. With this in mind, given it's my own server (well technically I rent the space from a hosting provider, but you know what i mean) and given I've sent several emails to them, will it be OK legally for me to remove their panoramas? Likely legislation would be Germany as that is where the server is based, or possibly UK because that is where I am based most of the time, As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails. Thanks, Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data
If it's SRTM it's just public domain isn't it? So if the resulting database is under ODBL I can't see that being a problem. Very much IANAL. Nick -Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote: - To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Peter K peat...@yahoo.de Date: 04/07/2013 09:05AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data Hi there, how would like to know how I could integrate SRTM data with OSM data. It is not for a mapping service where I could overlay the elevation curves/data and keep it separate. It is for my routing engine GraphHopper where I would need to do the following: * to calculate the distance I take the latitudes and longitudes from OSM, to guess the speed I take the highway and other tags. Then, with the help of the SRTM data I modify this distance and speed to be more real world. * to create an elevation profile of the resulting path. This should be simple (?) as the elevation data could be in a separate database and just fetched on demand. Will the resulting routing database fall under ODbL which the providers probably do not want as their elevation data could be guessed or even recalculated (with a bit effort)? Sorry, if this is a stupid question. I'm really new to OSM licensing world :) and there was a similar question but this was regarding hill shading and the old license: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-ASTER-or-no-ASTER-td5715399.html Regards, Peter. ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hi, Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? Generally I don't just copy the data into OSM anyway: it's more fun to survey :-) However I'm wondering whether we can do this? 1. Use the council data to verify whether a footpath surveyed by GPS is actually a public footpath, in cases when the waymarking is ambiguous and we think it's a right of way but may or may not be; 2. Removing the designation tag from a footpath surveyed from GPS before the council data was available. I've discovered that a path I surveyed in 2010 is not actually a right of way, according to Barry Cornelius' rownmaps.com. Thanks, Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
-Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: - To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com Date: 22/02/2013 03:12AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be used without permission (see question below). Second issue : the routes themselves are copyrighted. Hi Pieren, I am also not a lawyer, but here's my two cents. First, it would be really said if we lost the GR routes. I recently hiked about half of the GR20, using the OSM route of course. So I don't think we should give up easily - they're so valuable. On the trademark front, it should be easy to establish if they have a genuine complaint. If they do, I think we can change the names without losing too much - even if had to call them French hiking route 20 or something. Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). On what basis do they claim ownership of the routes, exactly? As I understand it, many of these routes link up lots of little trails that had been around for decades. How did copyright get transferred from the people who created the trails to the FFRP? Or do they claim ownership only over new sections? Or only over a particular representation? Are they aware that all the data has been created independently, by surveying the trail - not by actually copying their data? I wonder where the exact line would be drawn - what if we didn't have routes, but just the trails marked. But then, how would you label such a trail - often they have no other name other than the GR number, plus the name of the next landmark. Presumably someone has sought French legal advice? What was it? Steve ___ 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] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). On what basis do they claim ownership of the routes, exactly? As I understand it, many of these routes link up lots of little trails that had been around for decades. How did copyright get transferred from the people who created the trails to the FFRP? Or do they claim ownership only over new sections? Or only over a particular representation? Apologies - may have sent a blank response by accident. So does FFRP hiking routes include *any* waymarked/signposted trail in France? I hope not, as that would imply that OSM could not be used at all for planning/doing walks in France. I guess OSM would in that case need to come to some sort of agreement with FFRP/IGN. I'm not sure how French law on public access compares to the UK's, in my (limited) experience (Alpes-Maritimes/Mercantour area, north of Nice) certain trails are waymarked, others aren't but are subject to Defense d'entrer signs or similar... which is basically like the UK. 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) Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
IANAL but just a thought... is it legal anyway to copyright route references? That is what the GRs appear to me to be to my eyes. Can the Department of Transport copyright the reference M25 in the uk and prohibit its use in all other publications? Nick -Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: - To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Pieren pier...@gmail.com Date: 21/02/2013 12:24PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France Hi all, I'm submitting here a question about the legality of keeping French long hiking routes called GR or GRP or PR in OSM. All these routes are very well known, have sign posts and references on the ground, e.g. the GR20 in Corsica (but many are still missing or very incomplete in OSM). See these examples in [1a] and [1b]. These routes have been created by the national hiking sport federation (FFRP, Fédération Française de Randonnée Pédestre). You can see them on the ground by the trail marks visible at regular intervals but also on most of the commercial maps in France. But we are facing two legal issues in France. The problems are not new but become more critical in my opinion (see below). First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be used without permission (see question below). Second issue : the routes themselves are copyrighted. The list of trademarks is listed in the legal page of the FFRP web site([2]) : - (some are just used in books or commercial maps but) - GR® - GR Pays® - PR® - ... à pied - les environs de ... à pied - Sentiers des patrimoines are very common (especially the first 3 : GR, GR Pays (or GRP) and PR followed by a reference number. Question : the FFRP itself is an editor of hiking bookguides or has contracts with the IGN (the French state establishment for geographical information) for publishing commercial hiking maps, giving them royalties in return (an important income for the federation). So the FFRP is always actively contacting or bringing actions (sue) against private competitors or simple websites using their trademarks and routes on maps or book editors not paying any fees (see e.g. [3]). But some web sites seem to use them without fee ([4]). It seems that the FFRP is tolerating non-commercial use. Since 2009, 2 or 3 OSM contributors (including myself) tried to contact the FFRP to get the permission they request to use their copyrighted route names into OSM, wihout any reply until now. Earlier last year (Feb 2012), two members of the French local chapter met them physically and presented OSM. They showed some interest but repeated again and clearly that using the GR, PR, etc trademarks is not allowed without permission, a permission they didn't provide during that meeting (minutes available here [7]). They also didn't say anything about the future. it seems finally that they are looking for a replacement of their current map data provider (IGN) but they want to preserve their current commercial model. Note that the sign-posts (trail marks) are also protected (like a logo). After that meeting, we are several people thinking that we have the remove all references of the trademarks of the FFRP into OSM db, usually tagged in name or ref, either on ways or route relations or both. What's your opinion ? Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). Personnaly, I think that a route is not considered as an original work (or not enough original) in many jurisdictions. But still, keeping them in OSM is raising a legal insecurity in all DB extracts stored or distributed on French servers or applications. For these reasons, all FFRP hiking routes (represented in OSM by relations of type route, route=hiking) in France should be completely removed from the OSM database. What do you think ? Pieren [1a] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1107414 [1b] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2650826 [2] http://www.ffrandonnee.fr/_67/mentions-legales.aspx (in French) [3] http://www.balades-pyrenees.com/numero_55.htm (in French) [4] http://www.gr-infos.com/ [5] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudiidTexte=JURITEXT06938477fastReqId=330410198fastPos=9 (in French) [6] http://hiking.lonvia.de/fr/?zoom=13lat=42.95532lon=-0.61968 [7] http://listes.openstreetmap.fr/wws/arc/ca/2012-02/msg0.html (in French, require ML registration first) [8]
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Insurance for Mapping Party
It is a bit frightening that this sort of thing is required for a mapping party! Why is the, to my mind, utterly common-sense do it at your own risk, if you have an accident it's YOUR responsibility, not ours attitude so alien to the world today? In other words you shouldn't need insurance, but you're not allowed, under any circumstances, to sue the organisation if you have an accident. Seems complete common-sense. Nick -Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: - To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.' legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Paul Norman penor...@mac.com Date: 13/07/2012 03:53AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Insurance for Mapping Party I actually have some experience in this area, but keep in mind that the requirements may vary significantly by country. Some form of insurance is likely to be required by some organizations. I know the group bike rides I used to go on had insurance. On the other hand, if all you’re using their space for is meeting and computer-based activities they might not require insurance. A risk assessment should be fairly easy, there aren’t many risks. The biggest risk I can think of is if you’re outside on roadways subject to the hazard of being struck by vehicles, and the preventative measures are pretty easy, wear a high-vis vest (compliant with CSA Z96, ANSI/ISEA 107 or EN 471 as applicable). Depending on what you’re mapping, this might not be an issue. If you’re mapping footpaths it wouldn’t be, but if you decided to map highway features by foot it would be. From: Fozy 81 [mailto:foz...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:40 PM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Insurance for Mapping Party Hi, Slightly different legal question than licence issues. Not sure if this is the right place to ask it, but here goes... When organising a mapping party do we need public liability insurance in case of accident and/or disclaimer to be signed?. I am organising a mapping party in the Scotland. We are using a public building from an organisation who have kindly let us use their facilities for the day. They have asked if we have insurance in case of accident and if we have a risk assessment. It seems health and safety has finally caught up with OSM. In the past, I have organised mapping events but this issue has not been raised. Can anyone provide some advice on this issue? Thank you, Tim___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
Hello everyone, Re: the Hampshire ROW data - this is the response I got from the person I am in contact with. In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS open data on their website. The data was originally captured against the 10k raster data, meaning it carried OS IPR. However, OS introduced an exemption process that allowed creators of data with IPR (Derived Data) to apply for an exemption. Cambridgeshire were the first to successfully do this, we then used their process/application to apply to have Hampshire's exempt, which was granted. Following this we can now release the data using the OS open data licence, as the exemption basiclaly means that it can be used in the same manner as the data that OS have published themselves as open. The query as to our data being on the OS site I think refers to the line in the licence where OS are actually saying their Open Data is on the site, not all data that gets published under the licence, for example our RoW data. So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from where it came and how can be used So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense of the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this? Thanks, Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Response from Hampshire County Council
Hello Gregory, The quotes are used to quote the email. So the 'so in summary...' bit is mine and the 'so in short' is theirs. Nick -Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: - To: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com Date: 11/06/2012 02:02PM Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org, legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Response from Hampshire County Council Hi Nick, It's not clear where the e-mail ends and your commenting starts. If the paragraph So in short, we believe the RoW data can... is there's, then I'd support using it in OpenStreetMap. I believe it's commonly accepted that acknowledgement/copyright/attribution made in the relevant wiki page (imports catalogue?) and in a source tag for the changeset, is acceptable. On 11 June 2012 13:28, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hello everyone, Re: the Hampshire ROW data - this is the response I got from the person I am in contact with. In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS open data on their website. The data was originally captured against the 10k raster data, meaning it carried OS IPR. However, OS introduced an exemption process that allowed creators of data with IPR (Derived Data) to apply for an exemption. Cambridgeshire were the first to successfully do this, we then used their process/application to apply to have Hampshire's exempt, which was granted. Following this we can now release the data using the OS open data licence, as the exemption basiclaly means that it can be used in the same manner as the data that OS have published themselves as open. The query as to our data being on the OS site I think refers to the line in the licence where OS are actually saying their Open Data is on the site, not all data that gets published under the licence, for example our RoW data. So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from where it came and how can be used So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense of the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this? Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Follow up : Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hello Rob, (and all) I've emailed the Hants CC guy once - he was away so the email bounced. I've emailed him again tonight. Nick -Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: - To: talk...@openstreetmap.org, nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk, legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com Date: 08/06/2012 04:27PM Subject: Follow up : Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence Hi Nick, All, Has any contact been made with either Ordnance Survey or Hampshire CC to get clarity on the use of the Hampshire OS OpenData? Recap of the Issue: * Hampshire CC : The data has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence. Here the use of Open Data seems to be an internal term that Hants CC use [1]. To me this appears to suggest that they have contacted Ordnance Survey to check that they can release the data and OS came back with the suggestion that they use the OS Open Data Licence (it is clear that the rights of way are not derived from OS OpenData as the resolution is too high - i.e. very zoomed in) * The OS OpenData licence [2] states that it governs access to the data on OS's website. The Hampshire data is not on the OS website. This wording therefore looks bad but does it, in itself, prevent use of the data in OSM? * Ordnance Survey: Have stated that they have no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. Thus: If we take the Ordnance Surveys response to mean they have 'no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData LICENSED DATA being released under the Open Database License 1.0.' then we are okay. But, it this one step too far? Alternatively, we go back to Hampshire and get them to confirm that we can add this to OSM. We can use OS's quote as supporting evidence. Regards, RobJN [1] http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata.htm [2] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood - I guess you meant copying tags from existing CC-by-SA data not using existing CC-By-SA to work out where to remap. Apologies for the misunderstanding :-) Yes, my own practice so far has been to use ground observations (or memory, most of my remapping sp far has been based on 6-month old mapping trips from last summer/autumn) rather than copying tags from the old CC-SA. Nick -Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: - To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk Date: 09/03/2012 11:50AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data That's a big presumption. I would have expected that remapping would be done as a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Isn't not looking at existing CC-by-SA data a little OTT? We may as well forget the remapping ever getting done this side of 2020 if so ;-) That would be even worse than saying that you can't look at a road atlas to work out which roads need to be surveyed! AFAIK looking at existing maps to work out where to survey is perfectly OK, from numerous discussions on this topic in the past. For example, using road atlases to navigate is ok as long as the actual status of the road is taken from ground observations. Is anyone seriously going to sue us for looking at our own data to work out where to remap? Nick =___ 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] What happens on April 1?
I agree. Another reason not to is that the looming deadline is actually motivating people to stop waiting for CT-undecideds to respond and do remapping - I know it's motivating me and other people I've talked to. Take away the deadline and you demotivate remappers, while also putting off the contribution from the wait-and-sees as Frederik says. I suspect that we'll see the highest rates of remapping work in the few weeks immediately before and after the deadline. For that, we need the deadline. I'm tending to agree now. TBH I'm not really for the licence change given the effect on the data... but given it's going to happen, I'd prefer to get it all over with. For one thing I know I personally will be more motivated to remap if gaping holes appear, than I might be presently... though I have done a bit in the last couple of weeks. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Remapping using GPX traces?
Hi, As I've indicated already, in my local area - Hampshire - there are very large numbers of footpaths contributed by a former mapper who has declined the CTs and so obviously I'm concerned about the impact of April 1st. Remapping these on the ground is going to be a huge job and something I'm unlikely to have the time for. However, I was thinking: in areas where I know for sure there's a footpath, could I use the original GPX trace as source material? Or, if the GPX was contributed by the former mapper does that mean that the actual OSM data would inherit the declined status from the GPX trace? What if the GPX traces are anonymous? Clearly if I can use the GPX trace, this will mean that re-mapping his contributions might be rather more feasible, at least in certain areas where I know where the footpaths go. Thanks, Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
