> What is the "official" word on the practice of checking non-approved > data sources, not for inclusion in OSM, but to ensure what is being > included is correct? >
That is honestly a good question! I guess to me this would be a bit of a grey area, nowhere is the practice explicitly mentioned. I agree with you on the google example, that would certainly be crossing the line. I hadn't considered this a violation as before I used the data to align the Bing imagery I checked the license for the data. Aligning imagery certainly fit within the license. This is actually the first time I have done this and I thought of it more as a separate process than adding data to OSM. At no point was the fredericton data and the osm data loaded at the same time, and no offset data was derived from the fredericton data. It was simply used to see if the bing offset was correct. It was not used to create a new offset in order to draw osm data. I have to believe that that the process I used would be correct or else sites like geofabrik compare would be in violation of the license. If I had used the fredericton data to create a new offset I could see there being a problem but this was not the case, the fredericton data was simply used to verify the bing imagery. tl;dr No offset was derived from the Fredericton data, it was simply used to check the Bing imagery. That's my two cents. ingals
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
