Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: >> Australian copyright law recognises that copyright can subsist in >> compilation of facts. Once copyright subsists, the only test is >> "substantial part". > > Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that > OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when > providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? For the sake of argument, this has been argued to death on talk@ and legaltalk@ for years. It's a settled matter. Australian copyright law is not relevant[1], it is the globally accepted OSM rule that we do not copy from other maps. We do not copy from any other sources. With the narrow exception of where we have explicit permission. That is the OpenStreetMap way. We don't have to like it, when a local matter MIGHT permit a different interpretation. We just have to accept that We Do Not Copy From Other Sources. and it is not a matter for local rules lawyering. There are other hard and fast rules too, in OSM. Don't engage in edit wars. Treat each other nicely. And then we can express our creativity and genius by fighting over whether this particular way is tertiary or secondary. If you've strong feelings on this topic, and some expertise in the matter, join the License Working Group and start building support for a more flexible set of rules for mappers. Best regards and happy mapping, Richard [1] not on it's own. This is a global project. We have to consider as many jurisdictions, simultaneously as we can. And we all have to live with the consensus. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
At the risk of being that guy that questions everything: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: >> Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that >> OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when >> providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? > > > I think that question equates to, how would you get caught? Well, firstly, Well, no. In most (all?) instances of copyright infringement, there's really no doubt that copying has taken place. If you release an MP3, and I have that MP3 on my computer, then by some channel I have copied it from you to me. But if you have a list of street names in my suburb, and I have a list of street names in my suburb, it's really not possible to say that one of us copied the other. (And in reality, it will be much less clear, because both of us will also have street names that the other doesn't, plus all sorts of other differences.) >> Certainly - but breaching terms of service is not copyright infringement. > > The outcome after a successful case is much the same. Ok, IANAL, but I would have thought (could well be wrong) that the remedy for breaching terms of service is basically being blocked from using the service. To sue, they'd need to demonstrate some damages - a bit different from copyright infringement. >> I also have to say, there's a big grey area between "copying street >> names to build a database" and "looking up street names out of >> curiosity, while also building a database". > > No there isn't. Imagine you are on a jury, and you have a defendant witness > saying "I didn't copy street names, I just looked them up out of curiosity > while I was also building a competing map product". And then the defence lawyer starts asking, "So why do you contribute to OSM? Are you curious about maps? Describe your interest in maps..." etc. At that point the jury realises we're all weirdos and gives up. > That's why "Just Don't Do It", works best. Yep - I'm in complete agreement that vigorously chanting "don't copy data" is the correct strategy. >Because B and C would not contain the same facts. Every map source has unique >errors, some of which are put there on purpose. Streets that don't exist, >names spelt wrong, with the wrong road type, >etc. It's not hard to show where >data comes from, if you copy a lot of it. Hence the value of cross-checking between multiple sources. Btw - does this "deliberate errors" thing still take place, or is it something of an urban myth? >The third street I ever mapped, just down the road from my house at the time, >has slightly different names on the road signs, the local street atlas, and >google maps. I have no idea which of the three is >officially correct, but OSM has what's on the signs. Yep, it's a simple rule to apply. Would you do that if there was agreement amongst every source except the physical sign? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
John wrote "Turn off the "snap to road" feature to avoid copying the existing map." Absolutely. On some of the older Garmin Nuvi's if you had the snap to road option on then the track log would still be the actual gps readings, but on my newest one the track log also snaps to the road . Unfortunately I can't find out how to turn off "snap to road" (Garmin 3590lmt) so I'm now using a dedicated data logger. (I-O-Data.) It's in Japanese but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon :-) Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On 11 September 2012 01:28, Steve Bennett wrote: > Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that > OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when > providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? Because B and C would not contain the same facts. Every map source has unique errors, some of which are put there on purpose. Streets that don't exist, names spelt wrong, with the wrong road type, etc. It's not hard to show where data comes from, if you copy a lot of it. The third street I ever mapped, just down the road from my house at the time, has slightly different names on the road signs, the local street atlas, and google maps. I have no idea which of the three is officially correct, but OSM has what's on the signs. Stephen ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On 11/09/12 01:28, Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: Australian copyright law recognises that copyright can subsist in compilation of facts. Once copyright subsists, the only test is "substantial part". Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? I think that question equates to, how would you get caught? Well, firstly, I would hope that OSMers are honourable people. Secondly, if it came to a court case, would someone really perjure themselves, knowing that your Internet history, etc, for the last two years may be there to be subpoened? If everyone copied just one street name, that's around 200,000 street names copied. Is that substantial? In addition to that we have the terms of service that attempt to prevent copying any part of them, specifically prohibiting building a databases of places or listings. Certainly - but breaching terms of service is not copyright infringement. The outcome after a successful case is much the same. I also have to say, there's a big grey area between "copying street names to build a database" and "looking up street names out of curiosity, while also building a database". No there isn't. Imagine you are on a jury, and you have a defendant witness saying "I didn't copy street names, I just looked them up out of curiosity while I was also building a competing map product". As I said, these twists and grey areas don't get us very far. OSM is a fun hobby, but it is also has the capability to do some real damage to the business models of some companies with large legal departments. Everybody can imagine their own way they believe is legitimate, but ultimately may well not be. The OSM community doesn't want to operate in a legal space where there is controversy. We want to give our downstream data users the ability to create innovative data uses - even if they compete with commercial providers, knowing that our open data is free of impediment. That's why "Just Don't Do It", works best. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Australian copyright law recognises that copyright can subsist in > compilation of facts. Once copyright subsists, the only test is > "substantial part". Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when providers B and C contain exactly the same facts? > If everyone copied just one street name, that's > around 200,000 street names copied. Is that substantial? In addition > to that we have the terms of service that attempt to prevent copying > any part of them, specifically prohibiting building a databases of > places or listings. Certainly - but breaching terms of service is not copyright infringement. I also have to say, there's a big grey area between "copying street names to build a database" and "looking up street names out of curiosity, while also building a database". I'm not trying to be cute - I genuinely do this. (Although no one has asked, I should point out, I don't actually make a habit of copying street names from other sources. I occasionally look up the names of major roads, but cross-check them in a few sources. Anyone looking at my contributions history will see large numbers of unnamed streets.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On 10/09/12 12:49, Richard Weait wrote: The "don't copy from other sources" thing is about as close as we have to a Commandment. "Just Don't Do It." It's carved on a stone tablet somewhere. it goes along with, "be nice to each other", "no editwarring", "don't delete the grocery store that competes with the one you own", and "don't add just one little worm t your code just this once because you need the money." It's time to remind people with GPS units that it may be possible to copy existing maps without realizing it. On some units which show maps, there's a "snap to road" feature (by whatever name). If a proprietary map is loaded, such a GPS will try to interpret a deviation of a hundred metres or more as being on the known road. Turn off the "snap to road" feature to avoid copying the existing map. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Charles Gregory wrote: > Just to play devil's advocate: > > What if someone used Google Street View? "Don't." :-) Firstly, It's copying. We as a community have decided that we don't copy from maps and other sources for which we don't have explicit permission. Secondly, you'll probably find that the terms of service for that product do not permit such use. Third, yes, I know that perhaps somebody once said that it might be okay under certain conditions. It isn't. They didn't. They didn't have the authority to say so. The "don't copy from other sources" thing is about as close as we have to a Commandment. "Just Don't Do It." It's carved on a stone tablet somewhere. it goes along with, "be nice to each other", "no editwarring", "don't delete the grocery store that competes with the one you own", and "don't add just one little worm t your code just this once because you need the money." Just Don't. Now if you have, and you feel bad. (You should) you can fix it and come back into the light. Come to the Data Working Group with the details and get some help. But honest to goodness. Don't. We're not horsing around. There's nothing that you can add to the map that's worth the risk to the project. Plus, every other source is lame anyway. :-) OSM beats 'em all hands down. Map it right. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I shouldn't have started this discussion - sorry. Suffice to say: > > 1) OSM policy is not to copy street names from any other source other > than appropriately licensed ones, or from physical street signs. > 2) IMHO, this particular aspect of OSM policy is IMHO excessively > conservative with regards to actual copyright law. IMHO. > > Just to play devil's advocate: What if someone used Google Street View? Regards, Charles ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
> 1) OSM policy is not to copy street names from any other source other > than appropriately licensed ones, or from physical street signs. > 2) IMHO, this particular aspect of OSM policy is IMHO excessively > conservative with regards to actual copyright law. IMHO. Australian copyright law recognises that copyright can subsist in compilation of facts. Once copyright subsists, the only test is "substantial part". If everyone copied just one street name, that's around 200,000 street names copied. Is that substantial? In addition to that we have the terms of service that attempt to prevent copying any part of them, specifically prohibiting building a databases of places or listings. In addition to that, we have jurisdictional issues, where OSMF and the servers are in the UK, which has a database right. I don't think the OSM policy is the slightest bit conservative. OSM is in a position to become a commercial threat to private mapping companies. Legal action against OSMF is a arrow in the quiver of any mapping company looking to protect their business. The law is not settled enough for anyone to predict the outcome of such a case with any certainty. It is unclear if OSMF would have the resources to defend such a case, and certainly I've never detected in the OSM community a desire for a role in shaping this legal landscape. Whiter-than-white is the only way for OSM to be. Brett Russell wrote: > Just as an aside, more than a few copyright sources get things wrong plus > even the authorities with the classic being different > spelling of a location on the reverse side if a sign. How do you check this? Exactly. Although street signs can be wrong, confirming with a commercial map provider doesn't provide the definitive answer either. In Australia, there may not even be a definitive answer. However, OSM is a database, and the schema we use is expressive enough to encode this information. > Copyrighting town names does not sound legitimate even on commercial products. You're probably thinking of trademarks. Geographical names have traditionally been hard to get trademarks over. Colorado succeeded, Strathfield, not so much. The Australian Gazetteer from Geoscience Australia is CC-BY. Has anyone checked if they would object to us using this data for this purpose? I'm happy to send them an email to seek permission, if we haven't tried already? Would be a great source to check place names. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It is not perfectly valid > to use those resources for OpenStreetMap and you are advised in every > reference against using such resources. > > Don't copy anything into OpenStreetMap from any published map or other > source without explicit permission. I shouldn't have started this discussion - sorry. Suffice to say: 1) OSM policy is not to copy street names from any other source other than appropriately licensed ones, or from physical street signs. 2) IMHO, this particular aspect of OSM policy is IMHO excessively conservative with regards to actual copyright law. IMHO. Welcome aboard. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
Hi I can understand the sensitivity and required care but with geographical features the traditional resources have been maps and so you are a bit trapped. I can understand tracing from copyright work is not on but sounds like checking the spelling of a name Is even taboo. Just as an aside, more than a few copyright sources get things wrong plus even the authorities with the classic being different spelling of a location on the reverse side if a sign. How do you check this? Copyrighting town names does not sound legitimate even on commercial products. Yes I accept taking a list line by line is dubious practice but referring to a source for a check sounds ok. Basically the reason I know many names is from maps or people that had referred to maps. Surely that is legitimate?. But yes the aim must always to avoid a redaction mark two, three, etc. Cheers Brett On 09/09/2012, at 3:07 PM, "Richard Weait" wrote: > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > [ ... ] >> IMHO, it's perfectly valid to consult other maps (Bing, Google Maps, >> Melway, whatever) for street names, > > I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It is not perfectly valid > to use those resources for OpenStreetMap and you are advised in every > reference against using such resources. > > Don't copy anything into OpenStreetMap from any published map or other > source without explicit permission. > > Map the things that you observe in your personal surveys. Combine > those observations with the information from resources we have > explicit permission to use for OpenStreetMap. If you have doubts; > don't use a resource. And ask the License Working Group if you need > help with related issues. > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: [ ... ] > IMHO, it's perfectly valid to consult other maps (Bing, Google Maps, > Melway, whatever) for street names, I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It is not perfectly valid to use those resources for OpenStreetMap and you are advised in every reference against using such resources. Don't copy anything into OpenStreetMap from any published map or other source without explicit permission. Map the things that you observe in your personal surveys. Combine those observations with the information from resources we have explicit permission to use for OpenStreetMap. If you have doubts; don't use a resource. And ask the License Working Group if you need help with related issues. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Chuan wrote: > 2. How should cycle paths be tagged, with regards to lcn, rcn, or ncn? I have > read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#LCN > > Should these be tagged in relations, or should ways themselves be tagged > directly with rcn=yes? > > Viewing on opencyclemap, the south of Canberra has mostly lcn, with the Lake > Burly Griffin cyclepath tagged as rcn, and the north of Canberra tagged with > rcn. IMHO the goal is to end up with a map that has a mixture of both LCN and RCN, for readability: the long, "arterial" bike paths should be RCN. Something a bit like this: http://osm.org/go/0GFsCH--?layers=C (except in that case, it's a mix of RCN and NCN mostly). > 4. Lastly, in either reconstructing huge areas of redaction, or mapping > unmapped areas, where are people getting street names from? Street signs? IMHO, it's perfectly valid to consult other maps (Bing, Google Maps, Melway, whatever) for street names, as long as you don't *systematically* copy names from one source. Individual facts are not subject to copyright (certainly not in Australia). There is nothing magical about a street sign that makes it valid to copy a name from a physical sign, but not from some other source. This is probably a minority view though. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
On 3 September 2012 01:42, Chuan wrote: > 1. How do you know whether a road is a primary, secondary or tertiary road? There is nearly always (particularly in the non-Alphanumeric route states) some interpretation required. I think the guidelines in the Wiki are a good start https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_Tagging If there is a particular road that is causing an issue, feel free to discuss it here. > 2. How should cycle paths be tagged, with regards to lcn, rcn, or ncn? I have > read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#LCN > Should these be tagged in relations, or should ways themselves be tagged > directly with rcn=yes? We are superimposing the (rather pathetic) Australian cycleway network onto a more developed schema for local, regional and national cycleways. Some discretion is required. In Sydney/New South Wales, we're trying to build a consensus on the wiki as to what is regional, etc. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sydney_Cycle_Routes If there are multiple mappers in Canberra mapping cycleways, I'd suggest that as a reasonable collaborative way forward. As to whether to use a relation, or tag the street, I'd say that if the route incorporates several ways, and it is a point-to-point route, then a relation is the way to go. But I'd avoid creating a route for what is just a collection of cycle friendly streets, because relations aren't categories, and route relations definitely aren't. > 3. Regarding the redaction earlier, does it matter if some remaining data is > marked as "contributor terms declined"? e.g. the building named Fenwick in > http://osm.org/go/uNlFb5phy-- The reason that this object http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30032151/history Was left alone by the redaction process was that there are seven edits done to the object, and then a final edit by a mapper who declined the CTs to delete a single node. It was decided that the removal of information (as opposed to the addition or change of information) was not subject to redaction. If you want to discuss the legal theory behind this philosophy, I'm sure you'll be welcome at legal-talk! :-) However, I think it is unlikely the redaction process will be run again on this object. > 4. Lastly, in either reconstructing huge areas of redaction, or mapping > unmapped areas, where are people getting street names from? Street signs? Yep. Street signs, local knowledge, historical sources, other free or out of copyright sources in a particular area we are allowed to use. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Few questions about tagging ways in Australia
1. How do you know whether a road is a primary, secondary or tertiary road? 2. How should cycle paths be tagged, with regards to lcn, rcn, or ncn? I have read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#LCN Should these be tagged in relations, or should ways themselves be tagged directly with rcn=yes? Viewing on opencyclemap, the south of Canberra has mostly lcn, with the Lake Burly Griffin cyclepath tagged as rcn, and the north of Canberra tagged with rcn. 3. Regarding the redaction earlier, does it matter if some remaining data is marked as "contributor terms declined"? e.g. the building named Fenwick in http://osm.org/go/uNlFb5phy-- 4. Lastly, in either reconstructing huge areas of redaction, or mapping unmapped areas, where are people getting street names from? Street signs? -- Chuan Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
