After a bit of digital archaeology I've found this thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-July/000398.html
Which seems to be the point at which people thought they'd got
permission (but there are doubters in the thread).
The bit I can't figure is why they'd agreed to tagging with the
copyright notice but then the import seems to have gone ahead without
this, see:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/507147
for example.
Then there is a review in 2010:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004136.html
which seems to have resulted in someone still believing that we had
permission.
On 7/4/16 11:55, Andrew Harvey wrote:
As far as I can tell, this data isn't available under a free and open
license, so unless there is documentation somewhere to suggest
otherwise, it shouldn't have been imported to begin with and certainly
shouldn't be added again.
On 7 April 2016 at 11:30, Andrew Davidson <u...@internode.on.net
<mailto:u...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
There was an import of NSW places from the GNB database done back in
2008 with a helpful wiki page ;-)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NSW_Geographic_Names_Import
I'm proposing to review these to see what's changed in the last 8
years but I've run into a number of problems:
1. It would seem that the original import was not complete
2. The nswgnb tags have not survived well
3. The GNB has "helpfully" created entries for the address
localities but these seem to have taken on the reference numbers for
the original town/village/city. They've created new entries for the
original entity but this means that the town/village/city now has a
different reference number.
4. Sometimes the locality entry has the same location but at other
times it can be separated by up to 5km.
Initially I thought that the multiple GNB references could be
entered with multiple values like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3118349777
but this doesn't naturally tell you how the place:nswgnb and
ref:nswgnb line up and it doesn't lend itself to adding the
alt_names that are in the database. As an alternative I'd like to
use this scheme*:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113135446
which requires swapping the namespace prefix around to make nswgnb
the namespace. I think this makes it clearer how the GNB categories
line up and can be extended for more names (There is at least one
place in NSW with three different variant names).
I'm also proposing to put the LOCALITY or SUBURB entry at the same
place as the corresponding TOWN/VILLAGE/CITY etc entry (provided
that it still falls inside the admin_level 10 boundary).
Any views on these ideas? I think the most important thing is will
this be useful for the next person who looks at this in 5 to 10
years from now?
*Unusually the admin_level 10 boundary for this area is called Lake
Tabourie and has a separate GNB entry:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4103653600
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
