Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps

2012-03-10 Thread Kate Chapman 
Hi Paul,

This isn't a matter of one or two maps.  PLOTS is building a edit in
OSM button for their website, there are already tons of maps that have
been made: http://publiclaboratory.org/archive?page=1

-Kate



On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
 From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps

 Hi,

 On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
  Hey All,
 
  I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing
  from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite
  imagery.
 
  - So let's say you fly photos of an area
  - To stitch them together you use Google Maps imagery as the base
  - What is the deal with the imagery at that point?
  - If I trace the imagery is that really derived from Google Maps?
 
  It seems insignificant to me, but I wanted to get some insight.

 I would also like to know, especially in the context of Jeff Warren's
 mail on talk.  I think the legal side here is easier than the community
 customs.  I have heard both obviously if it's rectified using Google,
 it can't be used in OSM, and obviously it doesn't matter.

 I think Bing support in Map Knitter (even though legally it's in the
 same bandwagon as Google) would have a better community acceptance.
 Where I tried rectifying something with Map Knitter, Google imagery was
 useless because of complete cloud cover, too.

 I'm not a lawyer but I believe standard practice for imagery providers here
 is to rectify based on a database of survey points and I don't believe the
 providers regard their imagery as a derivative work of the database. Next
 time I'm at the city I'll ask them.

 If you are rectifying, try to get *some* survey points for your warping.


 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

2012-03-10 Thread LM_1 
Verfication would be a process of comparing my own data (lets's call
them A) with osm, likely using some automated precess, that would
output a set of locations or areas where the maps differ more than a
given threshold (dataset B).
Legally you now have three datasets A, OSM and a derivative work of
both (B). Dataset B would be used as a to-do list to resurvey or
reimport data from other sources than OSM. OSM data is not copied, but
were used for verification.
This should actually be completely legal now - derivatives works are
allowed, if not published no specific licence character is required.
Actual data for updating is taken from somewhere else.

If the clause is added that data verification requires publication
under free/open licence, it would actually tighten the licence, since
I highly doubt that independently acquired data on places where maps
differ could be treated as derivative work.

LM_1
2012/3/10 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org:
 On 09/03/12 22:36, LM_1 wrote:
 Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published
 under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
 data.
 This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is)
 will use it to overrun OSM...
 LM_1

 What is verification?

 If it is altering data to recreate OSM data, we are using verification
 to excuse copying.

 If it is looking at the map, we are using verification to damn reading
 a map.

 So I'm not sure verification is a useful term. Describing the boring
 mechanical actions that are being performed is probably more useful, as
 these are easier to consider against the actions permitted by the licence.

 - Rob.

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk