Hi, On 16 November 2017 at 20:19, Ilya Zverev <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for the questions about license and location quality, I answered these > in May: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-May/020216.html > > Not completely. I'm not convinced that the word of a third party (nothing personal) that another company has been paid by Shell to input their business locations into various online maps necessarily equates to Shell consenting to their data being released under the ODBL. Nor am I satisfied with your (again, nothing personal but as a third-party) assurance that the co-ordinate information "all placed properly on top of the fuel stations" with an "error of less than 10 metres" is "definitely not geo-coded". Somebody able to offer that certain assurance about how data was definitely *not *acquired should be equally able to explain how it definitely *was* acquired. I apologise if this seems like I am being obtuse but OSM has a long-standing policy of using sources which we are certain are okay for us to use. These are the standards we hold public sector open data releases to.. If this does (as Brian hopes) set a precedent private data releases, it should confrom to the community's existing import standards, not set a precedent of vagueness regarding licencing. I do hope you can clear this up and we can map the locations because there is lots of useful information there. Kind regards, Adam
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
