Simon Biber wrote: > On Thu, 2 September, 2010 11:22:54 AM, andrzej zaborowski <balrogg > <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> Besides, there's nothing in the Google Terms of Service which says >> "you may not make use of the facts you learn by using this website". >> That'd just be silly. Not to mention unconscionable, and therefore >> unenforcible. > Google does say that certain information displayed is proprietary > and may not be provided to others. > "any unauthorized copying or reproduction of the content in any form, > or by any means, is not permitted" Did anybody read the discussion in http://www.edparsons.com/2008/10/who-map-is-it-anyway/ The question was not about copying or reproducing something that exists on a map. It was about using an existing map or satellite imagery for locating some new feature that does not appear on the map. This is how the discussion started. The question by Richard Fairhurst (2008 October 9) "Interesting (I know, I know, I should get a life). But if the nice chaps at Richmond tell you there’s a recycling box at the corner of Park Lane and Park Road, and you use Google (map or satellite) to determine that said corner is at 51.425297,-0.334935, isn’t that a derivation? Because it would be really, really cool if it wasn’t." The answer by Ed Parsons (2008 October 9) "@ Richard, OK so this is really cool then, as I can use Google maps to determine the actual location, as it both does not occur on the original map or at Richmond’s website. It is the product of my interpretation in this case based on local knowledge and the imagery therefore it is not derived !" Niklas is having very analogous use case. He took a photo and he knows he was standing at the corner of Park Lane and Park Road. If he then looks at Google maps and takes the coordinates for geotagging his photo, Ed Parsons seems to think that the geolocation of the photo is not derived. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk