Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Hi again, The inevitable data cleaning comes closer and closer, therefore I want to rise the issue again before it's too late (with the new knowledge I got from Simon's answers). In short, I used old database objects (which were imports from sources incompatible with CT & ODBL) to enter entirely new data into OSM (IDs and some key-value pairs stayed the same). The new data are in commits marked as CT-compatible. It appears that the automated cleanup process is going to remove that kind of data. My question is: how to preserve the new data? I believe that the fact that I surveyed the objects myself and ignored all existing positions/tagging breaks "time-continuity" of the objects, and therefore their old license. Is it acceptable for me to wait until cleanup is finished, extract that kind of contributions and re-commit them? It's very unlikely that the original author of the imported data is going to relicense it. As much as I love contributing to OSM, I don't think I'm going to have the same willpower again to turn a blank 40x40km area into something useable. I don't want to sound negative, but combined with the fact that imports (which I consider a defining characteristic of open-source projects) are much harder now than a few years earlier, I might abandon OSM if this gets thrown away. I'm writing all this precisely because I don't want this to happen. Cheers, rhn > > The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB > doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the > attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. > > However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've > seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself > and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data > would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but > naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place. > > The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to > release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator > in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to > organize exactly that in Poland. > > Simon > > Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn: > > Three different examples; all of them were remapped& verified in respect > > to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean > > the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history > > > > Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? > > > > Cheers, > > rhn > > > >> If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of > >> your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other > >> developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely > >> we would need to see some examples. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow > >>> this list. > >>> > >>> Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as > >>> incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to > >>> be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first > >>> CC-only changeset). > >>> > >>> This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. > >>> I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an > >>> incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I > >>> managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and > >>> some landuse data with WMS and traces. > >>> The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual > >>> database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* > >>> would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes > >>> and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it > >>> wasn't a hassle). > >>> > >>> My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current > >>> data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatib
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
> > Am 29.03.2012 19:16, schrieb rhn: > > On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of > data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn > > Unluckily that the original source was PD doesn't make a difference > (legally), what counts is the licence you received the data under. > I'm well aware of that, it's just something that I found interesting. > Just so that things are clear, which account did you use that hasn't > accepted the CTs yet? > I own 2 accounts: rhn - I used it to import in addition to create, so I didn't mark it as CT-compliant by accepting CT. rhn_CT - created after CT was made mandatory for new users. Unfortunately, I didn't contribute much with it yet. Cheers, rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Thanks for the explanations. I missed a very important detail: I didn't accept CT with this account. However one of the Polish community members promised to mark all my changeset that were not imports as CT-compatible. >From this point of view, a lot of my data is clean starting from some commit, >perhaps except of those which were imported already tagged properly >(paradoxically...), and those with untouched name. In other areas, I edited data imported by other people in the same way. My main hope is that, since I can precisely and automatically extract data pieces that I created from scratch, the data in question is not considered to be derived from CC data and therefore not bound by CC. Regardless of the decision of UMP members, I don't want to rely solely on it in order to keep months of my work alive - that's why I'm asking for an alternative resolution here. On a side note, relying on such a decision would be ironic - a lot of data I imported were only a copy of a PD map :) Cheers, rhn > > The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB > doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the > attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. > > However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've > seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself > and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data > would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but > naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place. > > The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to > release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator > in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to > organize exactly that in Poland. > > Simon > > Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn: > > Three different examples; all of them were remapped& verified in respect > > to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean > > the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history > > > > Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? > > > > Cheers, > > rhn > > > >> If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of > >> your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other > >> developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely > >> we would need to see some examples. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow > >>> this list. > >>> > >>> Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as > >>> incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to > >>> be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first > >>> CC-only changeset). > >>> > >>> This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. > >>> I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an > >>> incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I > >>> managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and > >>> some landuse data with WMS and traces. > >>> The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual > >>> database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* > >>> would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes > >>> and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it > >>> wasn't a hassle). > >>> > >>> My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current > >>> data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? > >>> If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way > >>> to access CC data after the license change? > >>> If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> rhn > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> legal-talk mailing list > >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.or
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Three different examples; all of them were remapped & verified in respect to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? Cheers, rhn > If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of > your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other > developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely > we would need to see some examples. > > Simon > > Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: > > Hello, > > > > Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this > > list. > > > > Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as > > incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be > > reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first > > CC-only changeset). > > > > This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. > > I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an > > incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I > > managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and > > some landuse data with WMS and traces. > > The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual > > database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would > > be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways > > that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a > > hassle). > > > > My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data > > that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? > > If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to > > access CC data after the license change? > > If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? > > > > Cheers, > > rhn > > > > ___ > > 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CT-compatible data recycling imported nodes
Hello, Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow this list. Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first CC-only changeset). This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and some landuse data with WMS and traces. The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it wasn't a hassle). My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way to access CC data after the license change? If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? Cheers, rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS >> trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else. >> This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps >> aren't very helpful there either. > > well, you can still upload the traces as they are always usefull (also > more than one on the same place), especially in white areas, but > without further information (road name, road class, physical state, > reference number, restrictions etc.) you should tag them as > highway=road if you decide to do it (and if it wasn't cross country). > Btw: I guess you ment yahoo aerial imagery, as we have no right at all > to trace yahoo maps or take information from it. > > cheers, > Martin > I do tag them as highway=road or I try to strain my memory (and the map accuracy), because I don't like leaving roads like that. My bad, I meant Yahoo imagery + Landsat. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
Matt Amos wrote: > On 10/24/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 2009/10/21 rhn : >>> I'm a mapper for more than a year, and I know a little bit about >>> intellectual property, but some questions have been puzzling me for quite >>> some time. >>> >>> First of them - how much is allowed when referring to proprietary maps? Is >>> it right to look at the street names to see whether I got them right? Or >>> can I compare topology of the streets with the external map? See if I got >>> the village placement right and adjust it? >> IMHO (IANAL) you can always compare your map to others, but if the >> don't match, you will not know, who's right, unless you recontroll. > > i'd agree - it's OK to compare OSM to proprietary maps and use that to > figure out where needs surveying. but it's not OK to take information > from that proprietary map - if there is a difference then you'll have > to go out and survey the difference. > > so (imho) it wouldn't be OK to adjust village placement based on > proprietary maps; if there's a difference you'd have to look at other > allowable sources like Y! aerial imagery or out-of-copyright maps, or > go out and survey it with a GPS. > > cheers, > > matt Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else. This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps aren't very helpful there either. Cheers rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
I'm a mapper for more than a year, and I know a little bit about intellectual property, but some questions have been puzzling me for quite some time. First of them - how much is allowed when referring to proprietary maps? Is it right to look at the street names to see whether I got them right? Or can I compare topology of the streets with the external map? See if I got the village placement right and adjust it? The second I've been wondering about is copying the other way around. Suppose I'm working for a mapping company who has to trace satellite data to make a vector map. Not all roads are visible through trees and sometimes, the streets look similar to footways. Can I look at (printed, not overlayed) OSM maps to see where streets are to avoid mapping footways and paths as streets? Is my work a derived work of OSM if I do that? There is no tracing over OSM involved. I hope someone could explain it to me :) Cheers rhn ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
