Tom Isn’t the problem one of imports? The debate on importing 200M points would be entertaining.
Steve > On Oct 13, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: > > > I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good > > enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but that cogent argument > > thing you mentioned is missing either way. > > I and many others have been investing considerable energy into the > OpenAddresses project because of ambiguity surround ODbL's implications for > geocoding. OA is now over 200M address points collected from government > sources under open licenses; OSM currently has 56M features with > `addr:housenumber`. > > Obviously, not all of those 200M points belong in OSM. But many of them do. > OpenAddresses does not have the toolchain or community needed to improve and > maintain that data. Ultimately, those datasets should enter a collaborative > space where they are accessible to and improvable by all. In the > not-too-distant future, I suspect I will need to adjust a point when the > local pizza place has their drone drop my order on the roof > <http://media.salon.com/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-03-11-at-10.59.45-AM-1280x808.png>. > I want to do that work once in OSM, not a hundred times in a hundred > different closed geo databases. > > OSM is already good enough to make geocoding services better for many > geography types and locations. The plausible mechanism by which it becomes > self-sufficient and then great at geocoding is through network effects and > concrete needs, not through individual pizza purchasers complying with the > Terms of Service printed on the box containing their dinner. > > To me, this means making sure OSM-enabled geocoding services can be > constructed alongside proprietary data; and that their results can be used by > enough people to make the project's improvement matter to them. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > > Am 12.10.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Mr. Stace D Maples: >> .. >> Neither of the projects was scrapped because we couldn’t use OSM for the >> project, but because we couldn’t determine IF WE COULD use OSM for our >> particular uses. >> >> ... > > And you or your legal department approached the licensor of the data and > asked for an opinion on your use of the data? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk> > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
