On 23 May 2010 20:00, TimSC <mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk> wrote: > I have done a small test of automatically tracing buildings from OS > Street View. I have limited this to Wood Street Village, near Guildford. > I have not done any manual improvements but these should be done to > improve the quality. I am not doing that yet so people can take a look > at the result. It seems acceptable to me. I have implemented the code in > python and uploaded it using JOSM. There was a glitch with duplicate > nodes which JOSM validator fixed, I need to root out the cause in my code. > > http://osm.org/go/eurUp7x0Q-
Nice work. :-) However, not wanting to pour cold water on everyone's efforts with OS Open Data, but before we all invest too much time in using OS OpenData... My understanding is that the current terms from OS are incompatible with ODbL (in particular the part that allows produced works to be released to the public domain). OS might well be persuaded to dual license under ODbL-compatible terms, but I'm not sure they'll be prepared to agree to the "give OSMF the right to re-license under as-yet unspecified terms" part of the proposed new contributor terms. If OSM does indeed change to ODbL and/or OSMF want to ensure they have the right to re-license content we may well have to remove all OS OpenData derived data from OSM. This would be a great shame, and I'd hope that we will be able to work something out. But would be an even greater shame if people had invested lots of time in importing / tracing stuff that later had to be removed. We should probably get someone from OSMF LWG to contact OS to see what options they might consider. In the mean time, if we do use OS OpenData in OSM, we should be very careful to add proper source tags so it can be identified and removed later if necessary. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
