Hi. I have heard the sentiment that ways where the v1 author does not agree to the new CTs, the way will be deleted, and so therefore it must be a good idea to delete these ways and re-create them.
>From a copyright point of view, I agree with your problem with copying the tags. It has a similar problem to copying street names from Google Maps, but more so. I also wonder if it is really true that such ways will be deleted though. I hadn't heard this suggestion before. If the person is re-surveying the ways, where it was previously not sourced from survey data, I guess I can understand it (although depending on the location, some aerial photos can result in more accurate data than what a consumer grade GPS can provide). - Ben. On 13 November 2011 14:28, Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Recently the user FK270673 has made several edits around Sydney. (e.g. > changesets 9800812, 9803159, 9804035) > > It appears they have been deleting things already mapped, and re-adding > them as > * new objects (with new ids, deleting the old objects), > * traced from bing, > * with the tags from the deleted objects copied to the new object > traced from bing > > One example from the first changeset listed is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4989759/history > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/136684127 > > I feel there are problems with this, but the third one is the critical > one for me. I understand that many in OSM would like to remove all > data from users who declined the CTs and replace it with their own > work under which they agree to the CTs, and although this makes it > harder for others like FOSM to use OSM data, I find it acceptable and > I don't have a problem with this as anyone who disagrees with this > practice can map at fosm. > > But the third part makes these kinds of edits bad in by opinion. This > won't make this area of the map "CT approved", as by copying the > existing tags onto the new ways without permission you are making a > work derived from a CC-BY-SA work, hence it must be licensed CC-BY-SA. > The resulting work cannot be included in a CC0 like or attribution > only type license as it would be violating license under which the > original work was provided (CC-BY-SA). So all you have achieved by > doing this is loosing the original history of the object for no good > reason, and possibly reduced the spatial quality of the data (I'm > assuming Bing is worse, and less recent than NearMap). > > I asked the user in question about this, and it seems they take the > view that we can't copyright this information, so they feel they are > free to copy and release it under whatever license they wish. If this > was really true then you can consider the original data (including the > shape and location information) copyright free, so you may as well > leave it as is; and if this was the case, OSM wouldn't need a rule of > "don't copy from other maps", and could copy from other proprietary > data sources. > > I would also take the opportunity to point out to any remaining local > mappers of OSM that if these types of edit (i.e. deleting existing > data and replacing it with worse quality data ) continue, then it will > make it harder for others to pluck out any of your useful edits for > use in other mapping projects like fosm. It is fine either way, but it > would be unpleasant to see good data being lost because it is to hard > to move across to fosm. > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
