On Thursday 20 February 2020, Simon Poole wrote: > > Artificial "yes", but the main thing is that it is small enough to > ensure that it will essentially never be a substantial extract, on > the other hand large enough that you can cover the location of your > entrance, parking lot or whatever in it, with other words, large > enough to be useful.
First: This has absolutely no place in an attribution guideline, in particular since we already have a guideline specifically dealing with the subject of what is a substantial extract of OSM data. Second: You are here essentially declaring almost all indoor mapping performed within OSM (with the exception of really large structures like large airports) to be insubstantial and therefore not protected by the ODbL and free to take and use without attribution or share-alike. Given the highly variable mapping density in OSM and the fact that there is no limit in how detailed people may map things the whole idea of having a physical area limit for defining what is substantial seems inappropriate for OSM. And yes, that even more applies to the 1000 inhabitants limit which even back in 2014 when that was adopted was not appropriate. You can find areas with less than 1000 inhabitants in OSM with tens of thousands of features and many megabytes of data. Considering that insubstantial is fairly outrageous and as others have pointed out it would also not be compliant with the the obligations OSM has towards data providers who provide us data under the condition we distribute it under the ODbL, not to put it effectively in the public domain. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk