Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
I don't think the analogy is quite right. The Geocoding Guidelines say: Geocoding Results can be latitude/longitude pairs (as typical in forward Geocoding Results), and/or full or partial addresses and/or point of interest names (as typical in reverse Geocoding Results). Latitude/longitude pairs may come from a “Direct Hit” -- in which case the data returned will exactly match the data of a feature in the geo-database used for geocoding -- or it may be an “Indirect Hit”, in which case the data is inferred or derived from other features, but does not directly match any feature in the database. The most common type of indirect hits are interpolated addresses. For example: Suppose a Geocoding user queries “120 Main St, Anytown, Big State, USA” and there is a node in the geo-database for that address. A Geocoding Result consisting of the lat/lon of that node would be a Direct Hit. However, suppose instead the database contains nodes for 150 Main St and 110 Main St, but not 120 Main Street. A Geocoder might return a point in between in between the two known nodes as an estimate of the requested location. This point (an interpolated result) would be an Indirect Hit. In the section you quoted, it says "Geocoding Results are an insubstantial extract **or** contain no OSM data" (emphasis added). So *sometimes* there's no OSM data, but that's when the results are interpolated. Other times, individual Geocoding Results (and in certain circumstances as described in detail in the guidelines, certain types of collections of Geocoding Results) are insubstantial. I don't think tracing from a physical printout is the same as interpolating. It's more like a really basic trivial transformation. But like I said, based on the usecase you described, I agree I think all you need to do attribute, just based on different reasoning. -Kathleen On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:59 AM Lars-Daniel Weber wrote: > > According to community guideline for "Geocoding", I'm not using original OSM data in my new map at all. Since I've drawn lines from paper drawn on an Produced Work of OSM data, I don't have any of the original OSM elements in my final dataset, which are in the OSM dataset. > > So, I just need to credit OpenStreetMap as decribed in Section 4.3 of the ODbL, since it's a Produced Work. > > > > Users of a navigation application send an address search query to a > > cloud-based Geocoder. The Geocoder has access to two separate map > > databases, one of which contains solely OSM data. The other database > > contains non-OSM data. If the address is accurately found in the OSM > > database, the location is sent back to the navigation application. If > > the address is not found in the OSM database, then the other database is > > searched, and that result is returned. (The same example applies when > > the third party database is searched before the OSM database or when > > they are searched concurrently.) The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an > > insubstantial extract or contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger > > share-alike obligations and can be stored together with the > > non-OSM-based Geocoding Results with no impact on the non-OSM-based > > Geocoding results, so long as the aggregated collection of results does > > not contain the whole or a substantial part of the OSM database. The > > cloud-based Geocoder is, however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as > > described in Section 4.3 of the ODbL. > > Gesendet: Montag, 07. Oktober 2019 um 20:05 Uhr > Von: "Kathleen Lu" > An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." > Cc: "Lars-Daniel Weber" > Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles > > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of >> >> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL. >> >> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers, topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since they're specific for the current task. >> > > My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one shapefile doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one license. If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you have traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database Guideline. > >> >> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that >> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is >> > insubstantial >> > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline >> >> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extractio
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
According to community guideline for "Geocoding", I'm not using original OSM data in my new map at all. Since I've drawn lines from paper drawn on an Produced Work of OSM data, I don't have any of the original OSM elements in my final dataset, which are in the OSM dataset. So, I just need to credit OpenStreetMap as decribed in Section 4.3 of the ODbL, since it's a Produced Work. > Users of a navigation application send an address search query to a > cloud-based Geocoder. The Geocoder has access to two separate map > databases, one of which contains solely OSM data. The other database > contains non-OSM data. If the address is accurately found in the OSM > database, the location is sent back to the navigation application. If > the address is not found in the OSM database, then the other database is > searched, and that result is returned. (The same example applies when > the third party database is searched before the OSM database or when > they are searched concurrently.) The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an > insubstantial extract or contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger > share-alike obligations and can be stored together with the > non-OSM-based Geocoding Results with no impact on the non-OSM-based > Geocoding results, so long as the aggregated collection of results does > not contain the whole or a substantial part of the OSM database. The > cloud-based Geocoder is, however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as > described in Section 4.3 of the ODbL. Gesendet: Montag, 07. Oktober 2019 um 20:05 Uhr Von: "Kathleen Lu" An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Cc: "Lars-Daniel Weber" Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL. Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers, topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since they're specific for the current task. My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one shapefile doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one license. If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you have traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database Guideline. > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is > insubstantial > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay, not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen. It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on whether it's insubstantial, since if your usecase is as a filter to select POIs, then you can do that whether the borders make up a substantial extract or not, and you are willing to provide attribution anyway, so you do not need to conclusively avoid ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
> Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of > > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL. > > Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers, > topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't > appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since > they're specific for the current task. > > My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one shapefile doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one license. If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you have traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database Guideline. > > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that > > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is > > insubstantial > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline > > Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is > non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay, > not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen. > > It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on whether it's insubstantial, since if your usecase is as a filter to select POIs, then you can do that whether the borders make up a substantial extract or not, and you are willing to provide attribution anyway, so you do not need to conclusively avoid ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" > So if what is extracted is solely what was in the database, then the > extraction is not > material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually > change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be > impermissible under ODbL). Yeah, that's why I assumed, too. > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL. Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers, topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since they're specific for the current task. > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is > insubstantial > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay, not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen. But what does this result in? Sorry for asking... it's a real life problem, not a constructed one. And please remember the other question I've asked. I haven't found an answer on the web or the OSM boards. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
In my mind, the tile license (CC-BY-SA) sits on top of the database license, as the license to a produced work by the OSMF. So if what is extracted is solely what was in the database, then the extraction is not material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be impermissible under ODbL). This is the same principle, that if you use a CC-BY song in a music video that is licensed as CC-BY-SA, and then someone comes along and rips the song from the music video, the song is still CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL. Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is insubstantial https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 8:08 AM Lars-Daniel Weber wrote: > From: "Simon Poole" > > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both > > licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without > > conflict). > > I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM. > But it's damn difficult for me to find out under which license my work > falls. > I know lots of people, loading OSM tiles in QGIS and draw stuff on it. So > I'm pretty confused that there aren't any guidelines discussed. > > > But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a > > tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work > > as per > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline > > Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the > > data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC > > BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to. > > No, the shapefile will be used for further geoprocessing: selection of > POI, which are non-free, but fall into the border I've digitized upon the > OSM background map. > > Would you recommend > 1. to use another datasource as background map or > 2. draw all borders on an OSM extract once again? > > Since neither the drawing, nor my digitalization uses OSM data, I'm really > asking myself if it's not a trivial act at all? > Wouldn't "Drawn on OSM tiles in CC-BY-SA 2.0, based on OSM data in ODbL" > be enough as attribution? > > ___ > 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] map drawn based on OSM tiles
From: "Simon Poole" > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both > licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without > conflict). I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM. But it's damn difficult for me to find out under which license my work falls. I know lots of people, loading OSM tiles in QGIS and draw stuff on it. So I'm pretty confused that there aren't any guidelines discussed. > But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a > tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work > as per > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline > Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the > data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC > BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to. No, the shapefile will be used for further geoprocessing: selection of POI, which are non-free, but fall into the border I've digitized upon the OSM background map. Would you recommend 1. to use another datasource as background map or 2. draw all borders on an OSM extract once again? Since neither the drawing, nor my digitalization uses OSM data, I'm really asking myself if it's not a trivial act at all? Wouldn't "Drawn on OSM tiles in CC-BY-SA 2.0, based on OSM data in ODbL" be enough as attribution? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
Am 07.10.2019 um 01:23 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber: > I thought, whenever you re-digitize OSM data from a printed map, it would get > ODbL again. According to current ruling by European Court of Justice, a > printed map is just a database (it has been judged for a German topographical > map in small scale). > > So if I had freely drawn the borders based on extract of OSM (with the paper > on the desk), it would fall under ODbL? > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without conflict). But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work as per https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
Hi Simon, From: "Simon Poole" > Are you really doing this (applies to your 2nd question too) or are you > dealing in hypotheticals? As this would seem to be a rather roundabout > way to get shapefiles from OSM data it just seems to be rather unlikely. I'm really doing this but I'm *not* getting shapefiles from OSM data, I'm getting a shapefile from lines, someone has drawn as an overlay on a printed map produced by OSM data. Here's the whole story: someone has sent me areas drawn by hand on a printed OSM map (OSM standard style) with a (tick) black pen. I've scanned the map, georeferenced it in QGIS based on OSM data and digitized the marker. I've also played with QGIS color settings to only see the black pen and not the map on a white background (was easier to draw that way). The accuracy is aweful, but fine for the task the borders are needed for. Those lines often areas, where OSM doesn't have any borders (f.e. crossing a forest or field diagonally) and they never accurately follow a line on the printed map. > In any case you are creating a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 licensed > work which requires all derivatives to be licensed on CC BY-SA 2.0 terms > (that are far more restrictive than the ODbL). I thought, whenever you re-digitize OSM data from a printed map, it would get ODbL again. According to current ruling by European Court of Justice, a printed map is just a database (it has been judged for a German topographical map in small scale). So if I had freely drawn the borders based on extract of OSM (with the paper on the desk), it would fall under ODbL? Sincerely yours, Lars-Daniel > Gesendet: Montag, 07. Oktober 2019 um 00:45 Uhr > Von: "Simon Poole" > An: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles > > Are you really doing this (applies to your 2nd question too) or are you > dealing in hypotheticals? As this would seem to be a rather roundabout > way to get shapefiles from OSM data it just seems to be rather unlikely. > > In any case you are creating a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 licensed > work which requires all derivatives to be licensed on CC BY-SA 2.0 terms > (that are far more restrictive than the ODbL). > > Am 06.10.2019 um 15:05 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber: > > Dear users, > > > > I've drawn a map based on the official OpenStreetMap tiles, which are > > licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 using QGIS. The result is stored as a > > shapefile. The shapefile should be published to students to work with it. > > It might be printed and shared otherwise. > > > > Most of the time during the drawing, I've oriented myself on elements > > existing in OSM (rivers, streets etc.), but sometimes I've divided areas by > > own knowledge or by own needs. The resulting shapefile doesn't contain OSM > > data (nothing got extracted) and it doesn't have the quality to contribute > > back to OSM (I've generalized the geometries by hand). > > > > Is this a "produced work"? Can I release the shapefile under my own > > license, but attribute each element as "based on OpenStreetMap"? What > > license shall I point to? Since it's not directly based on the ODbL data > > (it's based on the rendered style), will data extracted from the map from > > others fall under ODbL again? > > > > Sincerely yours, > > 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 > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
Are you really doing this (applies to your 2nd question too) or are you dealing in hypotheticals? As this would seem to be a rather roundabout way to get shapefiles from OSM data it just seems to be rather unlikely. In any case you are creating a derivative of a CC BY-SA 2.0 licensed work which requires all derivatives to be licensed on CC BY-SA 2.0 terms (that are far more restrictive than the ODbL). Am 06.10.2019 um 15:05 schrieb Lars-Daniel Weber: > Dear users, > > I've drawn a map based on the official OpenStreetMap tiles, which are > licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 using QGIS. The result is stored as a shapefile. > The shapefile should be published to students to work with it. It might be > printed and shared otherwise. > > Most of the time during the drawing, I've oriented myself on elements > existing in OSM (rivers, streets etc.), but sometimes I've divided areas by > own knowledge or by own needs. The resulting shapefile doesn't contain OSM > data (nothing got extracted) and it doesn't have the quality to contribute > back to OSM (I've generalized the geometries by hand). > > Is this a "produced work"? Can I release the shapefile under my own license, > but attribute each element as "based on OpenStreetMap"? What license shall I > point to? Since it's not directly based on the ODbL data (it's based on the > rendered style), will data extracted from the map from others fall under ODbL > again? > > Sincerely yours, > Lars-Daniel > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
Dear users, I've drawn a map based on the official OpenStreetMap tiles, which are licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0 using QGIS. The result is stored as a shapefile. The shapefile should be published to students to work with it. It might be printed and shared otherwise. Most of the time during the drawing, I've oriented myself on elements existing in OSM (rivers, streets etc.), but sometimes I've divided areas by own knowledge or by own needs. The resulting shapefile doesn't contain OSM data (nothing got extracted) and it doesn't have the quality to contribute back to OSM (I've generalized the geometries by hand). Is this a "produced work"? Can I release the shapefile under my own license, but attribute each element as "based on OpenStreetMap"? What license shall I point to? Since it's not directly based on the ODbL data (it's based on the rendered style), will data extracted from the map from others fall under ODbL again? Sincerely yours, Lars-Daniel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
