Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Thanks for the clarification, Kathleen. > OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there > exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only > cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be > subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline. I understand you indicate towards: > Thus, an OSM dataset used in combination with a non-OSM dataset will be > considered a Collective Database, and will not trigger share-alike when: > the non-OSM data adds a particular type of geometry or data for a primary > feature that was not already present within a regional cut, and the added > feature data includes no OSM data; 1) We are not sure, if the new polygons somehow derive from OSM data. If the polys are either trivial or completely non-OSM, they add a geometry, not already presend and includes no OSM data. Therefor it will not trigger share-alike. #trivial To my eyes the polygons seem to be roughly drawn from OSM data and in other cases arbitrarily – possibly derived from local knowledge. You can find german comments, rather generic ones. These independently drawn partitions of land seem to reflect somewhat inaccurate or rather vague estimates of various properties, such as noise pollution, quality of view or perhaps some worth estimates. I could not see anything that is verifiable, according to OSM standards. But I may be very wrong. At a quick glance this seems trivial and of little use for OSM. Perhaps if those scores represented paid prices or actual rents the polys would somehow become data about something. But I couldn’t find any indication for that. 2) Those scores add a type of data for a primary feature not present in OSM and includes no OSM data already. So, as Kathleen already pointed out, they quite probably won’t trigger share-alike. Maybe the scores are calculated from other OSM features in some fashion and is therefor somehow already present in OSM. But I don’t see how. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
sent from a phone > On 28. Oct 2020, at 16:19, Kathleen Lu wrote: > > Actually quality scores would be not be subject to sharealike, per the > Collective Database Guideline. Why does the collective database guideline apply? Aren‘t they coloring OpenStreetMap derived data? To me this looks like a derivative database. Cheers Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Given that the attribution is exactly as requested on the website, I would
imagine any issues with below 993 layout pixels is an oversight or a bug. A
friendly email would suffice, but it certainly does not merit a letter from
OSMF. You are free to send the email yourself.
OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there
exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only
cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be
subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
> polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
> database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
>
>
> in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
> and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
> screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
> most tablets):
>
> https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css
>
> @media (max-width: 992px) {
> .leaflet-control-attribution {
> display: none;
> }
> }
>
> This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
> mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
> Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
> of copyright or the ODbL.
>
> The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
> me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
> about the residential quality of the land?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
sent from a phone
> On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> wrote:
>
> Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the polygons
> match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative database,
> then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
most tablets):
https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css
@media (max-width: 992px) {
.leaflet-control-attribution {
display: none;
}
}
This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
of copyright or the ODbL.
The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
about the residential quality of the land?
Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Tom, I think the description is rather unclear as to what the polygons are made of. Lars-Daniel's original description made it down like they were OSM polygons combined with each other, or otherwise simplified of details. A quick glance at the website seemed to confirm this. OTOH, his second email says "the edges of many polygons go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference." That does make me wonder whether the polygons were actually created from OSM data, with 3rd party data added or not. Looking at the website again, I see a few examples where a polygon does not match the road network, but do appear to match other polygons OSM (assuming that some OSM polygons have been combined or simplified). (Another possibility is that the polygons do not originate from OSM data, but were snapped to the OSM road network for visualization purposes only. I don't think there's enough information to know.) Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate. Best, Kathleen On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:02 AM Tom Hummel via legal-talk < legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi Lars-Daniel, Kathleen, > > > The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons > go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference. > So OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party > reference (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those > changes are share-alike by ODbL. > > The Trivial-Transf.-Guideline asks a trivial transformation to be > judged from a non-technical point of view. The quality of the > transformation itself should be non-trivial. > > You explained, how the edges of some polygons go along edges that may > be very difficult to obtain, as they can’t be found within OSM. While > Kathleen seems to assume that they are directly and easily derived from > OSM data. Is that right? > > OTOH that doesn’t seem important under the TTG. The TTG asks us to > estimate the modification or addition itself. You seem to be certain, > the modifications are only possible by combination of 3rd party data > and OSM data. From that perspective, they don’t seem very trivial to me. > Kathleen? > > Thanks > > Tom > > ___ > 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Hi Lars-Daniel, Kathleen, > The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons go > across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference. So > OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party reference > (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those changes are > share-alike by ODbL. The Trivial-Transf.-Guideline asks a trivial transformation to be judged from a non-technical point of view. The quality of the transformation itself should be non-trivial. You explained, how the edges of some polygons go along edges that may be very difficult to obtain, as they can’t be found within OSM. While Kathleen seems to assume that they are directly and easily derived from OSM data. Is that right? OTOH that doesn’t seem important under the TTG. The TTG asks us to estimate the modification or addition itself. You seem to be certain, the modifications are only possible by combination of 3rd party data and OSM data. From that perspective, they don’t seem very trivial to me. Kathleen? Thanks Tom ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Dear Kathleen, thanks for your response. > Even assuming the polygons are from a Derivative Database, I don't see a > reason for the data to be released under > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference. So OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party reference (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those changes are share-alike by ODbL. The Derivative Database cleary has to be under OdbL. While the creation method might be trivial, the amount of data used for the creation is neither trivial in terms of investment or nor quantity: They've used millions of OSM nodes (ways, areas etc.) in Germany to create it. > Why would the polygons, which appear to be simply algorithmically combined > OSM data, be of interest? I don't think the ODbL cares what's in interest of OSM (the "O" in ODbL is not "OSM"). This is just an additional "wish" by the OSM community. Also, the addition polgons, which I have mentioned, might be in interesting of OSM, since they might show a change in landuse, which isn't part of OSM now. Sincerely, Lars-Daniel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Hi Lars-Daniel, Even assuming the polygons are from a Derivative Database, I don't see a reason for the data to be released under https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline Why would the polygons, which appear to be simply algorithmically combined OSM data, be of interest? Best, Kathleen On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 8:34 AM Lars-Daniel Weber via legal-talk < legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi there, > > https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/ displays location quality of residential > areas. Those residential areas haven been produced using OSM data; the > polygon area results from at least three surrounding paths and streets. > > Since the polygons are derived from OSM data and released in public, I've > asked the owner to release the database OR the method to create the > database according to ODbL v1.0, section 4.6 - of course without the values > of location quality. He denied. He doesn't see a reason to release the > data, which the Produced Work is based on. > > In my opinion, they've created a Derivative Database using their polygons > and they're publishing a Produced Work (the tiles) in public. So section > 4.6 applies here - doesn't it? > > Sincerely, > Lars-Daniel > > > ___ > 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
[OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Hi there, https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/ displays location quality of residential areas. Those residential areas haven been produced using OSM data; the polygon area results from at least three surrounding paths and streets. Since the polygons are derived from OSM data and released in public, I've asked the owner to release the database OR the method to create the database according to ODbL v1.0, section 4.6 - of course without the values of location quality. He denied. He doesn't see a reason to release the data, which the Produced Work is based on. In my opinion, they've created a Derivative Database using their polygons and they're publishing a Produced Work (the tiles) in public. So section 4.6 applies here - doesn't it? Sincerely, Lars-Daniel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
