As I understand IP, things can be copyrighted but still liberally licensed, so a statement of copyright does not necessarily mean that the work is not reusable. So that is not an immediate source of concern to me. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
The material I would be mostly interested in deriving information from to use for OSM are the images (containing the exit signs etc.) as well as the descriptive text. Not so much the maps - we have those in a pretty good state already, including the numbered route relations (see http://maproulette.org/relationpages/ which I still need to look into because it's not auto-updating any longer..). As for reliability - we're never going to be 100% certain unless we approach everything in the old fashioned OSM way - go out and survey! But given the mapper density here, that is just not going to happen any time soon. I see making a connection to other communities like AAroads as a way to add more eyes and ears to OSM in specific areas. These folks seem pretty passionate about what they are doing, as are we, so I get a sense there may be a connection. I signed up for the AARoads forum so I guess I will find out soon enough. On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not think that the copyright is compatible with OSM use as written. The > statement I find most relevant is "All content, including but not limited to, > the design, graphics, and photographic media are copyrighted by the AARoads > webmasters or their respective contributors." This appears on > http://www.aaroads.com/privacy_policy.html as the second sentence on the > page. However, I have not been involved in content licensing discussions for > OSM use previously and necessarily defer to precedent set in those prior > discussions and policy decisions. > > Looking at one particular page at semi-random, > http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/de-001n_b.htm, shows a map view but there is > no apparent attribution on the image or page to indicate the copyright status > of the map graphic, whether it is an original creation from self-collected > GIS data or is a properly copyrighted derivative work from a contributing > body. Nor is the attribution really clear from the parent page, > http://www.aaroads.com/delaware/, though at least there are a number of > individuals named, though it is not clear what proportion of the content can > be attributed to the named people and what might have been derived from other > sources. In other words, pretty typical for a website. Because of this, I'm > not sure if the site would pass the "reliable source" tests used by Wikipedia > - not that this is terribly relevant to OSM, just a convenient comparative > benchmark to reference. > > --ceyockey (Courtland) > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
