Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Hans De Kryger]

It's been 10 days and i haven't received a response from this user (1) What
should be done?

(1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/2bre99

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> > But the idea that facts indexed by Google could be tainted is a
>> > stretch. It's not something they've tried to claim, it would be a
>> > tenuous legal argument, and it doesn't make much sense. I think this
>> > is a case where practical judgment must outweigh theoretical concerns.
>> They have at least historically made noises about 3rd parties (aka MS)
>> using their search results.
>
>
> In this case, though, Microsoft was actually directly copying Google's
> search results, and directly admitted to it.
> http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914
>
> That situation is actually closer to being analogous to taking a copy of
> Walden and crossing out Henry David Thoreau's name and writing in your own.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> > But the idea that facts indexed by Google could be tainted is a
> > stretch. It's not something they've tried to claim, it would be a
> > tenuous legal argument, and it doesn't make much sense. I think this
> > is a case where practical judgment must outweigh theoretical concerns.
> They have at least historically made noises about 3rd parties (aka MS)
> using their search results.


In this case, though, Microsoft was actually directly copying Google's
search results, and directly admitted to it.
http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914

That situation is actually closer to being analogous to taking a copy of
Walden and crossing out Henry David Thoreau's name and writing in your own.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Bryce Cogswell]

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 4:07 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> In this case, though, Microsoft was actually directly copying Google's search 
> results, and directly admitted to it.  
> http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914
> 
> That situation is actually closer to being analogous to taking a copy of 
> Walden and crossing out Henry David Thoreau's name and writing in your own.

Microsoft wasn't copying the search results per se, it was recording the link 
clicked in response to a search. The Google ranking wasn't the interesting 
information for Bing, it was the user action, and recording that would record 
Google's unusual honeypot result links as a byproduct. (The press did a poor 
job explaining this.)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Robert Norris]

>
> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 17:33 +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
>> Ahemm that was the whole point: is it about completing  information
>> (the
>> website URL) in OSM by systematically (as in going through "all
>> schools"
>> in the UK) querying google and not about retrieving information from
>> the
>> website returned in the query.
>>
>> I can't see any fundamental difference between the above and say
>> getting a phone book and extracting all the phone numbers of schools
>> from it
>
> There's at least one fundamental difference; the user of google search
> results has to do an evaluation of the result set returned and make a
> judgment call to select the one he's actually interested in.
>

Agreed, I think one must "phone that number" (i.e. visit that URL) to confirm 
it exists and that is it the primary contact of the named item.



  
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Robin Paulson]

On 2016-01-08 06:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

You could even see it the other way round: any website is a kind of
database (structured information). Has google a right to copy this, or
index it (i.e. create a derivative database)?


maybe, maybe not. they could argue that most web sites want to be found 
and search is the most common way, so it's an assumption they make which 
they would claim is reasonable.


isn't there a "right to be forgotten" directive in eu now, which allows 
a person/institution to be removed from searches in the eu? so, opt out, 
not opt in.


also, they have bigger and better lawyers than everyone else, which is 
probably the most important thing when deciding who is right and wrong.


--
robin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.01.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Robin Paulson :
> 
> also, they have bigger and better lawyers than everyone else, which is 
> probably the most important thing when deciding who is right and wrong.


Facebook also have good lawyers (I guess), still they have lost against an 
Austrian student of law in a recent and famous case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems

"On 6 October 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, (1) 
national supervisory authorities still have the power to examine EU-US data 
transfers in spite of an existing Commission decision (such as its Safe Harbor 
Decision in 2000 which determined that US companies complying with the 
principles were allowed to transfer data from the EU to the US), and (2) the 
Safe Harbour framework is invalid."
...

cheers 
Martin 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.01.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Robin Paulson :
> 
> isn't there a "right to be forgotten" directive in eu now, which allows a 
> person/institution to be removed from searches in the eu? so, opt out, not 
> opt in.


the database directive is opt in, not opt out.

cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.01.2016 um 17:08 schrieb Tom Lee:
> Google indexing a site, and your use of that index to find the site,
> does not taint the interaction between you and that site. If I
> trespass on private property on my way to buy groceries, the property
> owner might have a claim against me. But it is unlikely that they have
> any claim on my newly-purchased groceries.
Nobody was claiming that to start with.
>
> In this case, there are additional factors in our favor: the
> information being retrieved doesn't seem to be collected
> systematically; it's factual information about the world; and it's
> being collected from unstructured sources.
>
Ahemm that was the whole point: is it about completing  information (the
website URL) in OSM by systematically (as in going through "all schools"
in the UK) querying google and not about retrieving information from the
website returned in the query.

I can't see any fundamental difference between the above and say getting
a phone book and extracting all the phone numbers of schools from it
(and again I would point out that calling the school in question is not
the topic).

> I don't want to pretend there is no tension here--indeed, I think
> there's a very real tension between the idea of database rights and
> the necessity of making facts unencumbered by IP. And it is
> conceivable to me that some corner of the Google TOS implies a right
> to restrict this kind of user activity. It's common for such tensions
> to exist without resolution until they are brought before a judge.
>
> But the idea that facts indexed by Google could be tainted is a
> stretch. It's not something they've tried to claim, it would be a
> tenuous legal argument, and it doesn't make much sense. I think this
> is a case where practical judgment must outweigh theoretical concerns.
They have at least historically made noises about 3rd parties (aka MS)
using their search results.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Tom Lee]

Google indexing a site, and your use of that index to find the site, does
not taint the interaction between you and that site. If I trespass on
private property on my way to buy groceries, the property owner might have
a claim against me. But it is unlikely that they have any claim on my
newly-purchased groceries.

In this case, there are additional factors in our favor: the information
being retrieved doesn't seem to be collected systematically; it's factual
information about the world; and it's being collected from unstructured
sources.

I don't want to pretend there is no tension here--indeed, I think there's a
very real tension between the idea of database rights and the necessity of
making facts unencumbered by IP. And it is conceivable to me that some
corner of the Google TOS implies a right to restrict this kind of user
activity. It's common for such tensions to exist without resolution until
they are brought before a judge.

But the idea that facts indexed by Google could be tainted is a stretch.
It's not something they've tried to claim, it would be a tenuous legal
argument, and it doesn't make much sense. I think this is a case where
practical judgment must outweigh theoretical concerns.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Markus Lindholm]

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 17:33 +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
> Ahemm that was the whole point: is it about completing  information
> (the
> website URL) in OSM by systematically (as in going through "all
> schools"
> in the UK) querying google and not about retrieving information from
> the
> website returned in the query.
> 
> I can't see any fundamental difference between the above and say
> getting a phone book and extracting all the phone numbers of schools
> from it

There's at least one fundamental difference; the user of google search
results has to do an evaluation of the result set returned and make a
judgment call to select the one he's actually interested in.

/Markus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Marc Gemis]

What about changeset comments with "google" in it ?

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Hans De Kryger
 wrote:
> So i just came across an edit of a user near me that listed the source of
> his edit as (Google Maps Street View) (1)
>
> I have just contacted the user asking for more information about his edit
> and let him know of the the policy of OpenStreetMap not to copy from other
> maps.
>
> So i thought i would search tags (source=google) hoping to find any source
> tagged with the word google anywhere. Assuming there has to be more. Here's
> what i found (2)
> Seems like any others should be addressed.
>
> (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3835343766#map=19/33.85088/-112.10980
> (2) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Dgoogle
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Hans De Kryger]

So i just came across an edit of a user near me that listed the source of
his edit as (Google Maps Street View) (1)

I have just contacted the user asking for more information about his edit
and let him know of the the policy of OpenStreetMap not to copy from other
maps.

So i thought i would search tags (source=google) hoping to find any source
tagged with the word google anywhere. Assuming there has to be more. Here's
what i found (2)
Seems like any others should be addressed.

(1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3835343766#map=19/33.85088/-112.10980
(2) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Dgoogle

*Regards,*

*Hans*

*http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13
*
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Marc Zoutendijk]

Fun to see that someone working at Google is using his (Googles?) knowledge to 
add information to OSM:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/99815562 


Marc.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Nicolás Alvarez]

> El 7 ene 2016, a las 07:47, Hans De Kryger  
> escribió:
> 
> So i just came across an edit of a user near me that listed the source of his 
> edit as (Google Maps Street View) (1)

This is obviously wrong. Google Street View is not an allowed data source.

> I have just contacted the user asking for more information about his edit and 
> let him know of the the policy of OpenStreetMap not to copy from other maps.
> 
> So i thought i would search tags (source=google) hoping to find any source 
> tagged with the word google anywhere. Assuming there has to be more. Here's 
> what i found (2)
> Seems like any others should be addressed.

But this isn't necessarily wrong. source=google is ambiguous. It could mean 
Google Maps, or it could mean they did a Google search for the information, and 
then wrongly sourced Google instead of the websites found by that search.

In some areas it could also mean data taken from Google Maps satellite imagery 
that Google explicitly allowed the use of, during natural disasters.

Be suspicious of source=google, it's a red flag. But it doesn't immediately 
mean bad data to be removed.

> (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3835343766#map=19/33.85088/-112.10980
> (2) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Dgoogle
> 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Simon Poole]

Oh, no.. not again. Please have a look at previous threads with similar
topics.

The majority of the google source tags reflect permitted use after the
Earthquake in 2010.

Further as has already been said the use of StreetView is not allowed.

Simon

Am 07.01.2016 um 11:47 schrieb Hans De Kryger:
> So i just came across an edit of a user near me that listed the source
> of his edit as (Google Maps Street View) (1)
>
> I have just contacted the user asking for more information about his
> edit and let him know of the the policy of OpenStreetMap not to copy
> from other maps.
>
> So i thought i would search tags (source=google) hoping to find any
> source tagged with the word google anywhere. Assuming there has to be
> more. Here's what i found (2)
> Seems like any others should be addressed.
>
> (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3835343766#map=19/33.85088/-112.10980
> (2) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Dgoogle
>
> *Regards,**
> *
> *Hans*
> *
> *
> *http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheDutchMan13*
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/01/2016 11:00, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:


El 7 ene 2016, a las 07:47, Hans De Kryger > escribió:


So i just came across an edit of a user near me that listed the 
source of his edit as (Google Maps Street View) (1)


This is obviously wrong. Google Street View is not an allowed data source.



Indeed - although no so long ago a new user in the UK used 
"source=Google Street View" simply because they misunderstood the source 
field.


The street was half a mile up the road from them and they changed the 
name based on local knowledge.  They then thought they had to 
"demonstrate" to other mappers that what they knew was correct (a bit 
like wikipedia's references) and so added a Google Street View link.  I 
explained that "source=local_knowledge" is perfectly OK, and all was well.


Obviously what needed to happen here was for someone to contact the 
mapper, which Hans has already done, so thanks for that.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.01.2016 um 12:04 schrieb Dave F.:
> It needs clarifying that it's using Google maps/Streetview that's
> unauthorized.
>
> I use Google almost every time I add to the database. For example in
> Great Britain there's currently a project to map & update all schools
> in the country. To find their website addresses I use Google search,
> perfectly legitimately. 
I'm not quote sure why you believe that.

While using a small number of individual search results is likely OK
both in the US and EU, systematic extraction and use of specific google
search results by OSM is at least potentially problematic (and the same
goes for any other collection/database of websites). Google doesn't seem
to say anything explicit on the matter, but then I just might be missing it.

SImon


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Dave F.]

On 07/01/2016 13:10, Simon Poole wrote:



Am 07.01.2016 um 12:04 schrieb Dave F.:
It needs clarifying that it's using Google maps/Streetview that's 
unauthorized.


I use Google almost every time I add to the database. For example in 
Great Britain there's currently a project to map & update all schools 
in the country. To find their website addresses I use Google search, 
perfectly legitimately.

I'm not quote sure why you believe that.

While using a small number of individual search results is likely OK 
both in the US and EU, systematic extraction and use of specific 
google search results by OSM is at least potentially problematic 


Please explain why.


(and the same goes for any other collection/database of websites). 
Google doesn't seem to say anything explicit on the matter, but then I 
just might be missing it.


You appear unsure about your own claims.

Dave F.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.01.2016 um 15:29 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> On Thursday 07 January 2016, Simon Poole wrote:
>>> I use Google almost every time I add to the database. For example
>>> in Great Britain there's currently a project to map & update all
>>> schools in the country. To find their website addresses I use
>>> Google search, perfectly legitimately.
>> I'm not quote sure why you believe that.
> This is a great example IMO for the absurdity of some parts of legal 
> database protection as we have in the EU.
>
> The interesting thing is Google does not even provide direct links to 
> their search results so you have to actually call the site to be able 
> to get its URL.  The idea that Google retains rights on the URL of a 
> website you open in your browser because of the way you got there is - 
> well - interesting, although you are right this is within the scope of 
> the law when done in sufficient volume.
You don't actually have to open the link to be able to copy the URL.

In any case I think we would all agree that
- technically google provides a database of websites URLs 
- the search functionality is simply the way it provides access to the
database

Now if EU sui generis database protection applies at all to the
database, what would considered to be a substantial extract and if
individual copying by OSM contributors would be considered separately or
combined are all points that likely would have to be decided by a court
except if google would waive such rights (that is why search specific
google  ToS would be interesting). Naturally there's additional
complexity in the the database directive only applies to databases that
are published in countries that provide such protection to publishers in
EU member states (so in the case of google it might not apply at all).

In any case enough question marks to make a blanket "perfectly
legitimately" a bit iffy.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Dave F.]

On 07/01/2016 14:51, Simon Poole wrote:

In any case enough question marks to make a blanket "perfectly
legitimately" a bit iffy.


Interesting.

So it's question marks & not Chinese whispers & scaremongering? I'd 
genuinely like to see where either Google or OSM say this isn't 
permissible.


If search for a single school name, Google (or one of the many others 
available) returns the URL for that single school. Has it delved into 
it's stored information or returned up to date information on the fly?


I then search for the next name I require. The engine creates a new 
fresh list.


Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Not sure what to think

[Warin]

On 8/01/2016 6:15 AM, Dave F. wrote:

On 07/01/2016 14:51, Simon Poole wrote:

In any case enough question marks to make a blanket "perfectly
legitimately" a bit iffy.


Interesting.

So it's question marks & not Chinese whispers & scaremongering? I'd 
genuinely like to see where either Google or OSM say this isn't 
permissible.


If search for a single school name, Google (or one of the many others 
available) returns the URL for that single school. Has it delved into 
it's stored information or returned up to date information on the fly?


I then search for the next name I require. The engine creates a new 
fresh list


You could go to the Department of Education and use their search 
function to find the single school website? That should avoid google.




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk