Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Hi again, The inevitable data cleaning comes closer and closer, therefore I want to rise the issue again before it's too late (with the new knowledge I got from Simon's answers). In short, I used old database objects (which were imports from sources incompatible with CT ODBL) to enter entirely new data into OSM (IDs and some key-value pairs stayed the same). The new data are in commits marked as CT-compatible. It appears that the automated cleanup process is going to remove that kind of data. My question is: how to preserve the new data? I believe that the fact that I surveyed the objects myself and ignored all existing positions/tagging breaks time-continuity of the objects, and therefore their old license. Is it acceptable for me to wait until cleanup is finished, extract that kind of contributions and re-commit them? It's very unlikely that the original author of the imported data is going to relicense it. As much as I love contributing to OSM, I don't think I'm going to have the same willpower again to turn a blank 40x40km area into something useable. I don't want to sound negative, but combined with the fact that imports (which I consider a defining characteristic of open-source projects) are much harder now than a few years earlier, I might abandon OSM if this gets thrown away. I'm writing all this precisely because I don't want this to happen. Cheers, rhn The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place. The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to organize exactly that in Poland. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn: Three different examples; all of them were remapped verified in respect to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? Cheers, rhn If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely we would need to see some examples. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: Hello, Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list. Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only changeset). This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with WMS and traces. The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle). My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to access CC data after the license change? If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? Cheers, rhn ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Am 29.03.2012 19:16, schrieb rhn: On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn Unluckily that the original source was PD doesn't make a difference (legally), what counts is the licence you received the data under. I'm well aware of that, it's just something that I found interesting. Just so that things are clear, which account did you use that hasn't accepted the CTs yet? I own 2 accounts: rhn - I used it to import in addition to create, so I didn't mark it as CT-compliant by accepting CT. rhn_CT - created after CT was made mandatory for new users. Unfortunately, I didn't contribute much with it yet. Cheers, rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Thanks for the explanations. I missed a very important detail: I didn't accept CT with this account. However one of the Polish community members promised to mark all my changeset that were not imports as CT-compatible. From this point of view, a lot of my data is clean starting from some commit, perhaps except of those which were imported already tagged properly (paradoxically...), and those with untouched name. In other areas, I edited data imported by other people in the same way. My main hope is that, since I can precisely and automatically extract data pieces that I created from scratch, the data in question is not considered to be derived from CC data and therefore not bound by CC. Regardless of the decision of UMP members, I don't want to rely solely on it in order to keep months of my work alive - that's why I'm asking for an alternative resolution here. On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place. The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to organize exactly that in Poland. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn: Three different examples; all of them were remapped verified in respect to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? Cheers, rhn If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely we would need to see some examples. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: Hello, Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list. Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only changeset). This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with WMS and traces. The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle). My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to access CC data after the license change? If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? Cheers, rhn ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Hello, Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list. Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only changeset). This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with WMS and traces. The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle). My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to access CC data after the license change? If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? Cheers, rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Three different examples; all of them were remapped verified in respect to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? Cheers, rhn If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely we would need to see some examples. Simon Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: Hello, Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list. Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only changeset). This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with WMS and traces. The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle). My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to access CC data after the license change? If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? Cheers, rhn ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else. This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps aren't very helpful there either. well, you can still upload the traces as they are always usefull (also more than one on the same place), especially in white areas, but without further information (road name, road class, physical state, reference number, restrictions etc.) you should tag them as highway=road if you decide to do it (and if it wasn't cross country). Btw: I guess you ment yahoo aerial imagery, as we have no right at all to trace yahoo maps or take information from it. cheers, Martin I do tag them as highway=road or I try to strain my memory (and the map accuracy), because I don't like leaving roads like that. My bad, I meant Yahoo imagery + Landsat. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
Matt Amos wrote: On 10/24/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/21 rhn opstmaac@porcupinefactory.org: I'm a mapper for more than a year, and I know a little bit about intellectual property, but some questions have been puzzling me for quite some time. First of them - how much is allowed when referring to proprietary maps? Is it right to look at the street names to see whether I got them right? Or can I compare topology of the streets with the external map? See if I got the village placement right and adjust it? IMHO (IANAL) you can always compare your map to others, but if the don't match, you will not know, who's right, unless you recontroll. i'd agree - it's OK to compare OSM to proprietary maps and use that to figure out where needs surveying. but it's not OK to take information from that proprietary map - if there is a difference then you'll have to go out and survey the difference. so (imho) it wouldn't be OK to adjust village placement based on proprietary maps; if there's a difference you'd have to look at other allowable sources like Y! aerial imagery or out-of-copyright maps, or go out and survey it with a GPS. cheers, matt Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else. This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps aren't very helpful there either. Cheers rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
I'm a mapper for more than a year, and I know a little bit about intellectual property, but some questions have been puzzling me for quite some time. First of them - how much is allowed when referring to proprietary maps? Is it right to look at the street names to see whether I got them right? Or can I compare topology of the streets with the external map? See if I got the village placement right and adjust it? The second I've been wondering about is copying the other way around. Suppose I'm working for a mapping company who has to trace satellite data to make a vector map. Not all roads are visible through trees and sometimes, the streets look similar to footways. Can I look at (printed, not overlayed) OSM maps to see where streets are to avoid mapping footways and paths as streets? Is my work a derived work of OSM if I do that? There is no tracing over OSM involved. I hope someone could explain it to me :) Cheers rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
