Hi, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Making those nodes and ways, the users employ > their judgement and knowledge about the landscape, as in "I don't trust the > the GPS track around here because of trees and tall buildings," or "I'll > place a POI there because I know it's a pretty good pizza place. I'll look > up the opening hours too." > > I would argue that the latter is creative works and not under the category > considered by the CC to be "data"?
This is a hotly debated issue. My personal take on this is: Our aim is to come as close as possible to reality with OSM. We have to make compromises but these are not by design - if there *was* a way to record the extent and location of a street and not die from information overload then we *would* do that. We cannot do it because of technical limitations - we cannot measure everything that exactly, and even if we could, we couldn't store all the information, and even if we could, we couldn't process it. So if OSM is anything other than pure facts, then this is not because we want OSM to be an artsy project and thus have introduced some degrees of freedom in how something can be mapped. It is purely because of technical shortcomings. Any not-fact we have is, if you will, an inaccuracy that we would get rid of at the first opportunity. Thus, it would strike me as odd to make a principle of this "non-factualness" of OSM and claim copyright on the creative aspect. OSM is, in my eyes, a data collection project and not a creative works project. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
