Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] New rules for OSMI license change view
(taking this to legal-talk) Russ, On 12/27/11 05:08, Russ Nelson wrote: But this way is still marked as created by a nodecision user: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753605 Well, maybe it was created, but the sins of the father do not pass onto the son. No part of what the nodecision user created remains *except* for source=PGS. There may be a misunderstanding here. I *do* in fact ignore source (and note and fixme and created_by) when deciding whether there's a copyright of a nodecision user involved, and if indeed the source=PGS tag was the only thing that remained then this way would not be flagged. In this case however, there's a sequence of about 20 nodes that was created by the initial user and even though these may all have been individually moved and therefore the individual nodes are considered clean, the fact that these 20 nodes in this sequence form a line is considered the work of the original mapper. This is, of course, open to discussion. If mapper A creates a way with 20 nodes and adds one tag, and mapper B moves all those nodes individually *and* replaces the tag with someone else, then if A disagrees and B agrees, do we believe that A retains a copyright? Or, to widen the question a bit: The geometry of a way is determined from its node list *and* from the position of each of the nodes. Assume that you have no copyright in any of the node positions (because either the nodes were there before you, or because someone else moved them all around) - can you still have a copyright in the node list? Currently at least my software assumes that yes, you can. It would be possible to change this and say: You can only have a copyright in the node belongs to way relationship if you also have a copyright in the node. That would then mark as clean a way like the one above. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote: * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the tag name (individually or for a large number of objects)? No. It would be possible to say that a constribution is only harmless if neither the tag nor the value are present in the final version but then there will again be examples where this is wrong. I think a good way to deal with such but what if... situations is not to make sure they never occur, but to produce some kind of quantitative assessment. If we have reason to believe that the new rules produce something like a hundred errors then who cares. If it's more like a million then it needs to be fixed ;) A similar case is where a mapper adds many ways in a city, but another mapper thinks all of the objects were misaligned and offsets them en masse. Is your assumption here also that this takes all IP away from the first mapper? Currently in OSMI, this mapper will continue to be viewed as the author of all the ways; it is just the node positions that he got wrong and where his contribution is overwritten by the change. But this is something that Russ questioned this morning, see my other message on legal-talk. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version Are you sure that this is a good idea? I can think of lots of times where I've improved the tagging of an object by correcting / amending existing tagging using the information contained in that previous tagging (and no other specific knowledge of the object) to inform what the new tagging should be. This could include correcting obvious typos, correcting common mis-taggings and normalising multiple values to the recommended version contained in the wiki. I'm sure others will have made similar edits. For example, one might make the following 'obvious' changes whilst editing: * name=Tesco's -- name=Tesco (correcting an obvious typo in a tag value) * designated=public_footpath -- designation=public_footpath (correcting an obvious typo in a tag key) * note=signed as a public footpath -- designation=public_footpath (converting a note tag into recommended tagging) * shop=yes, type=coffee shop -- amenity=cafe, cuisine=coffee_shop (improving tagging in line with the wiki recommendations) In all these cases, the pertinent information in the new tagging can be derived entirely from the old tagging, without the use of any other source. So unless there's an explicit source tag for the new tagging, I think we would have to play it safe and regard the new tagging as a derived work of the old tagging. Therefore if the original tags were added by a non-agreer, and an agreeing mapper made the type of change above, I don't think it can be argued that the object is now definitely clean. But if I've understood your proposed system, if those changed / altered tags were the only tags added by a non-agreer, the object would be automatically seen as clean. (The first example I gave above may not get marked as clean as there's still a name=* tag in the later version -- it's not clear from what you've written if this tags are not present any more means the full tag (key--value pair), or the key value only. But even if the first example isn't included, I think the scheme will still give the wrong result for the other three examples.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Robert, when I wrote that I * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version I did indeed mean that the edit is harmless if the *key* is not present any more. This will still result in some harmless edits not being detected as such, but it is not as bad as you probably assumed it to be. In all these cases, the pertinent information in the new tagging can be derived entirely from the old tagging, without the use of any other source. So unless there's an explicit source tag for the new tagging, I think we would have to play it safe and regard the new tagging as a derived work of the old tagging. This is indeed something we can discuss. My current scheme will sometims assume copyright where there isn't: disagreer puts name=Fred's Bistro agreer corrects to name=Robert's Bistro - way still flagged as problematic since the name tag was placed by disagreer and is still present (even if different value) and will sometimes assume a harmless edit when it's not: disagreer puts nmae=Fred's Bistro agreer corrects to name=Fred's Bistro - way not flagged as problematic since tag placed by disagreer has been removed. Therefore if the original tags were added by a non-agreer, and an agreeing mapper made the type of change above, I don't think it can be argued that the object is now definitely clean. But if I've understood your proposed system, if those changed / altered tags were the only tags added by a non-agreer, the object would be automatically seen as clean. Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone wrote a note tag describing in colourful English what it is that he saw, and someone else then extracted proper tags from that text, then I'd be prepared to ascribe a copyright on the original prosaic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of that note made by someone else. I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how many false positives/negatives we get. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone wrote a note tag describing in colourful English what it is that he saw, and someone else then extracted proper tags from that text, then I'd be prepared to ascribe a copyright on the original prosaic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of that note made by someone else. I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how many false positives/negatives we get. Concern has been expressed in this thread about wrongfully considering clean what should still be considered tainted. Frederik, are your rules applied symmetrically? That is, will they also wrongfully consider objects tainted where they should be considered clean? So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted? I presume that the same types of errors can occur in both directions. Is that correct? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On 12/27/2011 09:08 PM, Richard Weait wrote: So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted? Yes, if a name tag is still present in the current version of the object then it is assumed to be dervied from whatever the decliner put there. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add the same tags: highway=residential name=Parkallee maxspeed=30 oneway=yes surface=cobblestone lit=yes There is no creativity in that, just the luck of being the first editor. In 2007, an anonymous editor was the lucky first one who noticed a street sign that has existed for almost 100 years now. In 2011, I have added some tags to v3. If I created (produced) a new way with a new number, but the same tags, it would be considered CLEAN. If I kept the old way for honouring history without legal obligation (as its tags are not covered by copyright), the same way with the same tags and the same last editor would be considered DIRTY. There is no legal obligation to give credit to first-time fact collectors, but there is also no legal requirement not to do it. Copyright only exists on fictional or very creative tags, not on facts like street names. The only logical argumentation how a way can be affected by copyright is to declare it fictional or supposed to be fictional or unsure to be factual. However, I would be surprised if anybody was really able to find a fictional way among 2.8 million ways uploaded by decliners. I would like to tag these ways with odbl=fact in order to indicate that there is no other possibility to tag them than with their actual name and their actual road condition. The LWG may decide whether to abridge history or not, but there is absolutely no reason to remove tags describing the factual road condition. Before a license change happens, IMHO the LWG and all participants should try to avoid unfitting terms like tag creator for those who have just added a well-known street name. Tag attestor would be more appropriate to describe that mappers are just copying facts from reality. First-time attestors do not have priority over late attestors and they cannot claim any copyright on facts copied from reality. Quality would increase if each mapper was able to confirm that a way uploaded by other mappers exactly fits reality. Famous places like Broadway in New York or Leicester Square in London could have thousands of attestors while local paths may have just one or two attestors. Of course, ways with many attestors should not be deleted even if they were attested first by a anonymous or deceased mapper. It takes some time to implement these ATTEST or CONFIRM buttons, but I would be happy if they were implemented long before a detrimental data loss happens. Cheers, FK270673 -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
Simply add odbl=clean to the way, after verifying it and you'll be fine. A few days later, or maybe even the next day it won't show up as problematic anymore. OSM wants to be extra careful, regarding copyright laws, and we always have been. So we'll also have to be when we want to change the license. I consider it a good exercise in fact checking and even if we have to drop a tag here and there, somebody will come along eventually to add it from their own surveys. Polyglot 2011/12/28 fk270...@fantasymail.de Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add the same tags: highway=residential name=Parkallee maxspeed=30 oneway=yes surface=cobblestone lit=yes There is no creativity in that, just the luck of being the first editor. In 2007, an anonymous editor was the lucky first one who noticed a street sign that has existed for almost 100 years now. In 2011, I have added some tags to v3. If I created (produced) a new way with a new number, but the same tags, it would be considered CLEAN. If I kept the old way for honouring history without legal obligation (as its tags are not covered by copyright), the same way with the same tags and the same last editor would be considered DIRTY. There is no legal obligation to give credit to first-time fact collectors, but there is also no legal requirement not to do it. Copyright only exists on fictional or very creative tags, not on facts like street names. The only logical argumentation how a way can be affected by copyright is to declare it fictional or supposed to be fictional or unsure to be factual. However, I would be surprised if anybody was really able to find a fictional way among 2.8 million ways uploaded by decliners. I would like to tag these ways with odbl=fact in order to indicate that there is no other possibility to tag them than with their actual name and their actual road condition. The LWG may decide whether to abridge history or not, but there is absolutely no reason to remove tags describing the factual road condition. Before a license change happens, IMHO the LWG and all participants should try to avoid unfitting terms like tag creator for those who have just added a well-known street name. Tag attestor would be more appropriate to describe that mappers are just copying facts from reality. First-time attestors do not have priority over late attestors and they cannot claim any copyright on facts copied from reality. Quality would increase if each mapper was able to confirm that a way uploaded by other mappers exactly fits reality. Famous places like Broadway in New York or Leicester Square in London could have thousands of attestors while local paths may have just one or two attestors. Of course, ways with many attestors should not be deleted even if they were attested first by a anonymous or deceased mapper. It takes some time to implement these ATTEST or CONFIRM buttons, but I would be happy if they were implemented long before a detrimental data loss happens. Cheers, FK270673 -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ 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
On 27 December 2011 15:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote: * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the tag name (individually or for a large number of objects)? No. It would be possible to say that a constribution is only harmless if neither the tag nor the value are present in the final version but then there will again be examples where this is wrong. I think a good way to deal with such but what if... situations is not to make sure they never occur, but to produce some kind of quantitative assessment. If we have reason to believe that the new rules produce something like a hundred errors then who cares. If it's more like a million then it needs to be fixed ;) Right, I asked because I think this case is quite frequent. Some changes, like natural=wood - landuse=forest, shop=dentist - amenity=dentist, and the other way are often done massively by people (not that they're very useful..). It's possible that in absolute numbers they're more frequent than genuine changes to the map. A similar case is where a mapper adds many ways in a city, but another mapper thinks all of the objects were misaligned and offsets them en masse. Is your assumption here also that this takes all IP away from the first mapper? Currently in OSMI, this mapper will continue to be viewed as the author of all the ways; it is just the node positions that he got wrong and where his contribution is overwritten by the change. If we talk about individual node positions then he got them wrong, but if we talk about geometries then the later change is a detail. But actually this case is probably quite rare so your earlier argument applies. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
On 28 December 2011 01:49, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add the same tags: highway=residential name=Parkallee maxspeed=30 oneway=yes surface=cobblestone lit=yes There is no creativity in that, just the luck of being the first editor. In 2007, an anonymous editor was the lucky first one who noticed a street sign that has existed for almost 100 years now. In 2011, I have added some tags to v3. If I created (produced) a new way with a new number, but the same tags, it would be considered CLEAN. If I kept the old way for honouring history without legal obligation (as its tags are not covered by copyright), the same way with the same tags and the same last editor would be considered DIRTY. Some reasons that I think it'd be risky to use that fact that there's no copyright in some tags are: * copyright works this way in many jurisdictions but in other jurisdictions the creativity factor is less important and the amount of work put into collection of data (sweat of the brow) is more important, so effectively copyright works a little like database rights in those places. IIRC this includes UK. * beside the copyright there are other intellectual property rights that may apply. * there may be some tags where there is some creativity, so if you want to be safe you have to look at each piece of information individually. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
