Re: [OSM-talk] mapbook v0.02

[Stefan Keller]

Hi Graham

I'm curious: Is it ready now?

2012/3/10 Graham Jones :
> Excellent - thanks Paul.
> I have nearly finished a web service that will allow users to select an area
> and generate a book using your programWill be a week or two before it is
> ready though
>
> Graham.
>
>
> On 10 March 2012 05:03, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>
>> I have completed an overhaul to my mapbook program, making it easier to
>> extend and adding new features.
>>
>> This program, available at https://github.com/pnorman/mapbook, will create
>> a
>> PDF with a title page, an index map showing the coverage of the book and
>> what page covers what area, then individual map pages, each page having
>> arrows indicating which page is in which direction. It also includes an
>> attribution page. An example for Vancouver, BC is available at
>> http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/mapbook/vancouver.pdf
>>
>> Mapbook will work with any mapnik .xml style and can generate
>> high-resolution maps that print well
>>
>> Requirements:
>>
>> Python 2.7
>> Mapnik2
>> Cairo
>>
>> Most osm mapnik styles will also require a postgis database created with
>> osm2pgsql
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Graham Jones
> Hartlepool, UK.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Lester Caine]

Jérome Armau wrote:

Basically, even if the data itself is public domain, the database that contains
it may be protected under EU law - this is to protect the amount of work that
went into the data collection. The whole issue is the definition of a
"substantial part" of the database. Are street names a substantial part of the
street view data?


Since the information displayed in an image has not been 'collected into a 
database' what is the problem? It is just raw material that still needs to be 
processed and in many cases it does not even tie up with even googles own search 
results. So providing an alternative database of information which corrects that 
information is simply common sense. And I don't accept that the fact that google 
have 'geo-referenced' the images comes into it since I normally have to scroll 
through several locations before finding the appropriate data, just as I scroll 
through several pages of results or browse several folders of pictures to get 
the right material. At some point it would be nice if we could link to alternate 
data sources direct from the map, but providing that via an alternate database 
such as nominatim just reinforces the fact that we ARE building an alternate 
database ...


Of cause in the UK once the street gazetteer is made open access the problem of 
street names becomes academic, and hopefully that will not be long coming as 
well. At which time the NLPG data may also be available, and we can start 
feeding corrections back into that!


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Jérome Armau]

If I remember correctly, at least part of the issue stems from the EU
database directive and the sui generis right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive#Sui_generis_right

Copyright protection is not available for databases which aim to be
> "complete", that is where the entries are selected by objective criteria:
> these are covered by *sui generis
> *database rights . While
> copyright protects the creativity of an author, database rights
> specifically protect the "qualitatively and/or quantitatively [a]
> substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or
> presentation of the contents": if there has not been substantial investment
> (which need not be financial), the database will not be protected
> [Art. 7(1)]. Database rights are held in the first instance by the person
> or corporation  which made the
> substantial investment, so long as:
>
>- the person is a national or domiciliary of a Member State or
>
>
>- the corporation  is formed
>according to the laws of a Member State and has its registered office or
>principal place of business within the European Union.
>
> Article 11(3) provides for the negotiation of treaties to ensure
> reciprocal treatment outside the EU: as of 2006, no such treaty exists.
> The holder of database rights may prohibit the extraction and/or
> re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part of the contents: the
> "substantial part" is evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively and
> reutilization is subject to the exhaustion of rights. Public lending is not
> an act of extraction or re-utilization. The lawful user of a database which
> is available to the public may freely extract and/or re-use insubstantial
> parts of the database (Art. 8): the holder of database rights may not place
> restrictions of the purpose to which the insubstantial parts are used.
> However, users may not "perform acts which conflict with normal
> exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
> interests of the maker of the database", nor prejudice any copyright in the
> entries.


Basically, even if the data itself is public domain, the database that
contains it may be protected under EU law - this is to protect the amount
of work that went into the data collection. The whole issue is the
definition of a "substantial part" of the database. Are street names a
substantial part of the street view data?

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Pieren  wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> > Imagine if Google didn't do that, you would have to find your street
> amongst
> > billions other Streetview photos. Not possible. So you can't say you
> aren't
> > using their referencing process.
>
> If you deduce the street position and shape from their photos into
> OSM, you are right. But if it is about checking street signs, the
> method how the picture is delivered by Google doesn't change any
> thing. The street sign remains in the public domain and is not
> copyrightable just because its photo has been referenced (that would
> be the same if we could read the signs from aerial imagery). They
> could be delivered by other means (e.g. "show me all pictures of
> street x, town y"), it's not interfering with the content. Or do you
> suggest that any web site referenced by Google becomes its property
> because you found it through Google Search and its huge web sites
> index ?
> Usually, in such discussion coming back and forth, this is the last
> argument trying to explain how a public domain material would become
> sudenly copyrightable. It's impossible.
>
> Pieren
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Semi-automated edits - postal code database

[Svavar Kjarrval]

Hi.

This is an update to an e-mail I sent at the beginning of October to the
talk@osm list regarding updating postal codes in Iceland semi-automatically.

I wanted to let you know I have written the script, which is for Python
3.2. I have not yet submitted data made by the script but I haven't
detected any problems thus far. I have performed some random manual
checks on the output and see nothing wrong with the XML. JOSM didn't
complain when I opened the .osc file.

The input is any valid .osm file and the output is an .osc file (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osc) which lists any changes made.
The output can be loaded into an editor and submitted to the OSM server
from there.

You're free to adapt the script to suit your purpose but I recommend
that you always check the proposed changes before uploading. The code is
commented enough so anybody who knows Python should be able to know
what's going on there.

Minimum requirements:
- Enough computer memory. The larger the .osm file, the more memory the
script needs.
- Python 3.
- A working installation of the Osmosis program (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis).

- Svavar Kjarrval

On 04/10/12 23:48, Martin Guttesen wrote:
> I have imported all the addresses for Faroe Islands
> and updating them from time to time when there is new data available
> see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/usfo
> i keep an Id tag (us.fo:Adressutal) so i can Create/Update or Delete
> address nodes
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Jochen Topf
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:39 AM
> To: Svavar Kjarrval
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Semi-automated edits - postal code database
>
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:10:05AM +, Svavar Kjarrval wrote:
>> I'm trying to find a good method to maintain data from outside sources.
>> The data in question is the Icelandic postal code database (which they
>> say we may use freely). My searches on the OSM wiki have been fruitless
>> so far.
>>
>> The idea is to maintain the data in associatedStreet relations. Each
>> relation has a tag called 'götuskrá:id' which value is a direct
>> reference to the row ID in the files we retrieve from the postal
>> company's website. The file formats available are CVS and XML 1.0. The
>> script would presumably go ever each associatedStreet relation and make
>> any changes (if appropriate) when a götuskrá:id tag is found. The output
>> could be an OSM change file loaded into an editor like JOSM to be
>> uploaded manually. Maybe an automated process later when we're confident
>> that everything is done correctly, and of course after submitting the
>> script(s) for review by the local community.
>
> It is not a good idea to add some random ID of your favourite database to
> OSM, because nobody except you can understand this ID and do useful
> things
> with it. It just confuses mappers and make it more difficult to edit the
> data. For every change somebody does to the data they have to know
> what this
> tag means so that they can properly do their edit. And if they don't,
> people
> will just mess up your data and you will not be able to use this ID for
> syncing the data anyways.
>
> And in this case I don't even see why you need it. You have street
> names and
> postal codes in both OSM and the Icelandic postal code database. If
> something
> changes you can find out which combinations changed and apply those
> changes
> to OSM easily just based on the postal code and street name. There is no
> need for those IDs.
>
> And, btw, you should not use the associatedStreet relation. It solves
> the same
> problem as the addr:street tags on nodes and buildings but in a much more
> complicated way. The overwhelming majority of all addresses are tagged
> with
> addr:street (there are nearly 15 million addr:street tags vs. only 18.000
> associatedStreet relations).
>
> Jochen

#!/usr/bin/env python3.2
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

# Copyright 2012, Svavar Kjarrval Lúthersson
# Released under the CC0 license.
# I can be contacted at sva...@kjarrval.is.

# This program performs changes according to pretermined formulas to .osm files
# and outputs a single .osc file which in turn can either be submitted automatically
# by another program (which is not implemented here) or manually with an editor.

# To use it, you must have:
# 1 - An .osm file of the area in question.
# 2 - An Osmosis binary set up and ready to use.

# The reason the script filters instead of working directly on the original file
# is to reduce memory consumption of programs which need to load the complete .osm file into memory.
# If, despite having done proper filtering, the .osm file is still too big to fit into memory,
# please consider splitting the area further.

import os
import xml.etree.cElementTree as etree

# Change the value of DEBUG to 0 when you don't want extra debug messages to appear on screen.
DEBUG = 0

# Get the current working directory
pwd = os.getcwd() + '/'

# Locat

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Lester Caine]

Pieren wrote:

Usually, in such discussion coming back and forth, this is the last
argument trying to explain how a public domain material would become
sudenly copyrightable. It's impossible.


Some of you may be aware of the problems with the 'tz' database. A commercial 
company claimed ownership of some of the data as they had 'originally' published 
it. Basically they owned 'time'. To cut a long story short ... they have now 
withdrawn the claim so as to avoid being prosecuted for copyfraud themselves. 
The material is public domain and so can not be held to ransom. All of the 
material we are talking about comes under the same banner ... end of story. If 
we can't freely use public domain information why are we bothering recording it?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Pieren]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> Imagine if Google didn't do that, you would have to find your street amongst
> billions other Streetview photos. Not possible. So you can't say you aren't
> using their referencing process.

If you deduce the street position and shape from their photos into
OSM, you are right. But if it is about checking street signs, the
method how the picture is delivered by Google doesn't change any
thing. The street sign remains in the public domain and is not
copyrightable just because its photo has been referenced (that would
be the same if we could read the signs from aerial imagery). They
could be delivered by other means (e.g. "show me all pictures of
street x, town y"), it's not interfering with the content. Or do you
suggest that any web site referenced by Google becomes its property
because you found it through Google Search and its huge web sites
index ?
Usually, in such discussion coming back and forth, this is the last
argument trying to explain how a public domain material would become
sudenly copyrightable. It's impossible.

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Russ Nelson]

Janko Mihelić writes:
 > Yet everybody agrees we shouldn't copy from satellite photos, but many
 > people think we can copy from Streetview.
 > 
 > What is the difference?

Uh, because Ed Parsons said we could? Why is this so difficult to
understand?

Okay, so there's this legal doctrine called "reliance". It means that
you can rely on people's assurances. If you are told that you can do
something which would, without that assurance, be a civil offense,
then you can bring that assurance into a court of law and say "I
believed that I had permission. I thought I was complying with the
law." and the judge will say "You were. Case dismissed."

That is why, whenever someone is asked about an ongoing lawsuit, they
*always* say "No comment." You MUST publicly believe your own
propaganda, or risk losing in court.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Janko Mihelić]

2012/11/6 Pieren 

> It's because on StreetView, we don't "trace" on the photo. Doing this
> on aerial imagery is reusing the transformation process of images
> rectified (including relief with DEM) and georeferenced. This is the
> "added value" protected. Facts visible on aerial imagery like "the sea
> is blue" is not copyrighted. But coastline position and shape is.
>

Streetview photos are georeferenced. Google found their position, and gave
it to you. That is how you found them.

Imagine if Google didn't do that, you would have to find your street
amongst billions other Streetview photos. Not possible. So you can't say
you aren't using their referencing process.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Russ Nelson]

Kevin Peat writes:
 > On 6 November 2012 09:28, Pieren  wrote:
 > > A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
 > > copyrighted "derivative work" just because you see it through a
 > > copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
 > > countries.
 > 
 > Isn't the real point that regardless of the legal situation we would
 > not like Google (and others) to rip-off OSM so we should not rip them
 > off in return. It is just basic respect at the end of the day.

It's not theft if you have permission, sigh.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Lester Caine]

Janko Mihelić wrote:

Nobody answered yet. How is copying from Streetview photos not the same as
copying from satellite photos? Both are photos, both show facts, both are owned
by Google.

Yet everybody agrees we shouldn't copy from satellite photos, but many people
think we can copy from Streetview.

What is the difference?


Tracing details from satellite images is creating a derived work and is copying. 
However if you could SEE a road name on the satellite images then simply reading 
something that is in the public domain can not be protected in the same way. 
Looking at an image on Streetview is no different to looking at the same image 
from any source. If a street name just happens to be visible, or the name of a 
shop or business one can then use that information, cross check against another 
search engine that it's not an 'Easter Egg' and there is no way one source can 
claim special rights over that information. There is no way that anybody could 
prove that a CORRECT public fact was copied from one source or another ... only 
ones designed to deceive which in my view are a worse offence?
In my own case businesses are now well out of date with many of the Streetview 
images anyway but Google still returns those years after they ceased to exist. 
We can then provide up to date data but we are not allowed to say 'Wrong on 
Streetview'?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Stephan Knauss]

Janko Mihelić writes: 


Nobody answered yet. How is copying from Streetview photos not the same as
copying from satellite photos? Both are photos, both show facts, both are
owned by Google.


It's unlikely that factual data is copyrightable. There had been multiple 
discussions in the past, along with relevant legal citations. Better head 
over to legal-talk for a more profound statement.

Use your trusted search engine to find more:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photogr
aphy 



As long as the legal situation is not 100% clear, OSM community agreed not 
to import from dubious sources. 

The key part is the TOS. They forbid to use services provided by Google to 
do mass-extraction of data. Click in Google on "Terms" to learn more. 

While it was confirmed by Ed Parsons that is OK to look up single facts, he 
clearly stated that Armchair Mapping is considered Mass extraction and thus 
not OK. 

As a community we strongly favor on the ground survey also for the fact 
that imagery is very often outdated. 



It was already mentioned, but I like to repeat: It's also an established 
community rule that we don't delete data just because we have a different 
opinion on whether it should be in OSM. We ALWAYS contact the mapper first.
This is why OSM has a "send message" function implemented and clearly shows 
who created an element. 



Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Pieren]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> What is the difference?
>

It's because on StreetView, we don't "trace" on the photo. Doing this
on aerial imagery is reusing the transformation process of images
rectified (including relief with DEM) and georeferenced. This is the
"added value" protected. Facts visible on aerial imagery like "the sea
is blue" is not copyrighted. But coastline position and shape is.

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/6 Ian Sergeant :
> 4. Those who wish to use such services should take the perogative to seek
> explicit permission to use them in the OSM context.
> 5. If that permission isn't obtained, we shouldn't use them.
> So, which of these points do you disagree with?


Your conclusion from 4 ("those") to 5 ("we"): from what I read in this
thread *1 it seems that it is not sufficient to get an explicit
permission individually in order to benefit collectively from it.

So the natural conclusion would be that an "official body" from OSM
would make a request to Google and hope for a positive response if we
want to use their Street View data.

Personally I see it like Pieren: there are terms and conditions which
request you to not copy or make derivative works from their
services/maps/images/works/... where both terms (copy and derivative
work) are well defined: derivative work is refering to copyrightable
parts. Interpreting something you see in a photo is neither copying
nor creating a derivative work as long as the content is not protected
by copyright (the name of a street is not protected by copyright or
even if it was it would not be Google to hold the copyright as long as
they didn't invent it (easter egg)).

Anyway: the most precious ways to add to OSM are those where Google
Streetview didn't even pass by, so in my practical work I don't use
them because they mostly don't have the pictures for the areas I'm
mapping in ;-)

cheers,
Martin

-
*1 Frederik: "I don't think that a personal message to one individual
mapper from someone, even if in a high position at Google, should be
read as Google allowing every mapper to use their imagery."

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Janko Mihelić]

Nobody answered yet. How is copying from Streetview photos not the same as
copying from satellite photos? Both are photos, both show facts, both are
owned by Google.

Yet everybody agrees we shouldn't copy from satellite photos, but many
people think we can copy from Streetview.

What is the difference?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Pieren]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:

> ...Now, there are different *ongoing* legal discussions around the
> world about is it legal or not copy facts from photos.

Facts are copyrightable now. Can you point some evidence or links
about what you say ?

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Peteris Krisjanis]

Hi everyone!

It seems that this list is magnet for very long, but sometimes useless
threads.

There are several facts people should remember before invest in this
discussion:
1. Common sensus/rule/whatever you call it in OSM is *not* touch
copyrighted stuff without clear license/permission to use it very
freely. Photos are copyrighted subject, even of your house in the
street. Now, there are different *ongoing* legal discussions around the
world about is it legal or not copy facts from photos. However, as long
as those disputes are ongoing and haven't ended in clear court decision,
we should avoid this - no matter how sweet is to have street names
without doing ground survey;
2. We don't delete stuff just because we find it suspicious. Best is
contact users first, get their POV, then contact data group.

And that's pretty much it.

We can discuss to death can we or can't we, but we won't copy stuff from
Google. But we also won't delete stuff before discussing this in
appropriate channels of communication.

Instead of that, how about improving map using current sources - like
Bing. And then going outside and writing down another bunch of house
numbers and POIs.

Cheers,
Peter.

O , 2012.11.06. 20:49 +1100, Ian Sergeant rakstīja:
> On 6 November 2012 20:28, Pieren  wrote:
> 
> A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
> copyrighted "derivative work" just because you see it through
> a
> copyrighted photo.
> 
> You are continuing to misrepresent what is at issue.
> 
> 1. There are licence and contractual terms concerning the use of the
> StreetView service.  
> 2. There is a possible interpretation of these conditions that may
> well open one or more parties to legal action from the service
> provider. 
> 3. The OSM project wants to remain beyond reproach when it comes to
> its legal position on its data.
> 4. Those who wish to use such services should take the perogative to
> seek explicit permission to use them in the OSM context.
> 5. If that permission isn't obtained, we shouldn't use them.
> 
> So, which of these points do you disagree with?
> 
> Ian.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Kevin Peat]

On 6 November 2012 09:28, Pieren  wrote:
> A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
> copyrighted "derivative work" just because you see it through a
> copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
> countries.

Isn't the real point that regardless of the legal situation we would
not like Google (and others) to rip-off OSM so we should not rip them
off in return. It is just basic respect at the end of the day.

Kevin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Pieren]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> 1. There are licence and contractual terms concerning the use of the
> StreetView service.

The use of the API...

> 2. There is a possible interpretation of these conditions that may well open
> one or more parties to legal action from the service provider.

That's why somebody asked Ed Parsons/Google in the past. To clarify
interpretations. His reponse was publicly forwarded at multiple times.
Why Google lawyers did not take any legal action or at least some
denial since 18 months ?

> 3. The OSM project wants to remain beyond reproach when it comes to its
> legal position on its data.
> 4. Those who wish to use such services should take the perogative to seek
> explicit permission to use them in the OSM context.
> 5. If that permission isn't obtained, we shouldn't use them.
>
> So, which of these points do you disagree with?

None. And this is not in contradiction with what Ed Parsons, Google
replied: ""so checking the odd street names is OK.. but every street
name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed"." (refering to the
collection of facts mentionned earlier).

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Peter Wendorff]

The difference is that for the satellite images we use we have a 
statement from the corresponding companies that allows us to do so.
Yes, that's nothing 100 Lawyers looked over, but it's a permission we 
got, be it from microsoft and bing, from yahoo or from others.


There is not yet anything like that from google, so that's the difference.

regards
Peter

Am 06.11.2012 10:21, schrieb Janko Mihelic':
How do proponents of copying from Streetview explain the difference 
between copying from satellite images and copying from Streetview? 
With satellite images you copy shapes of roads, with Streetview you 
copy street names. The same thing.


Janko


2012/11/6 Vladimir Vyskocil >



On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus mailto:carti...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

> Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All
arguments
> people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are
just a
> smokescreen to try to get their way.
>
> When viewing Google StreetView you are using a service from
Google. The
> rules in relation to that, are the rules for business
transactions, not
> those of copyright.
>
> Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed
to scrape
> tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are
> allowed to use their services.

Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the
provided material (images,...) and also that I can't make
derivative work. When I interpret what I can see in Street View
photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these !

>
>
>
> On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> According to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
>>
>> "In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an
expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected
elements of an original, previously created first work
(theunderlying work)."
>>
>> Obviously looking at google street view images and noting some
facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as
derivative work.
>>
>> And :
>>
>> "
>> When does derivative-work copyright exist?
>> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly
derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It
cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying
work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over
and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to
satisfy copyright law's requirement of originality.
>> "
>>
>> It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no
originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information
everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either.
>>
>> In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't
understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use
when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify
some facts (street names, signs, ...)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vlad.
>>
>> Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  I haven't read this thread in full but it has come to my
attention that people in this thread have argued that it would be
acceptable to use Google StreetView pictures when mapping.
>>>
>>> It is not.
>>>
>>> The legal situation may be debatable and indeed differ from
country to country but Google's terms of use do not permit making
derivative works of their imagery and distributing them.
>>>
>>> As a project, our general approach to any situation where
something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on
the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data
then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might
still be legal to do so.
>>>
>>> So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have
explicit permission from Google to do so.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>> Frederik
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org
  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>>
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
> --
> ---
> m.v.g.,
> Cartinus
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> http://lists.o

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Ian Sergeant]

On 6 November 2012 20:28, Pieren  wrote:

>
> A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
> copyrighted "derivative work" just because you see it through a
> copyrighted photo.
>

You are continuing to misrepresent what is at issue.

1. There are licence and contractual terms concerning the use of the
StreetView service.
2. There is a possible interpretation of these conditions that may well
open one or more parties to legal action from the service provider.
3. The OSM project wants to remain beyond reproach when it comes to its
legal position on its data.
4. Those who wish to use such services should take the perogative to seek
explicit permission to use them in the OSM context.
5. If that permission isn't obtained, we shouldn't use them.

So, which of these points do you disagree with?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[vegard]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:28:45AM +0100, Pieren wrote:
> 
> A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
> copyrighted "derivative work" just because you see it through a
> copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
> countries. But some people are continuing to keep the doubts because
> they have a preference for surveys on the ground (something we have to
> promote anyway but with fair arguments). Claiming copyright ownership
> on public domain material has a name, it's called "copyfraud" ([1])
> and is rarely sued in court in comparison to copyright infringements.
> 

The legality around copyright on "collections of facts" are different
throughout the world. We have to assume that collections of facts
are, indeed, copyrightable, and that a lawsuit (or even just bad 
publicity) based on it will be able to stick.

-- 
- Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Pieren]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM,   wrote:

> So anyone who considers adding stuff that is not 100% OK to copy is
> destroying the project from within, not helping it.
>
> Period.

A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
copyrighted "derivative work" just because you see it through a
copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
countries. But some people are continuing to keep the doubts because
they have a preference for surveys on the ground (something we have to
promote anyway but with fair arguments). Claiming copyright ownership
on public domain material has a name, it's called "copyfraud" ([1])
and is rarely sued in court in comparison to copyright infringements.

Period.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Janko Mihelić]

How do proponents of copying from Streetview explain the difference between
copying from satellite images and copying from Streetview? With satellite
images you copy shapes of roads, with Streetview you copy street names. The
same thing.

Janko


2012/11/6 Vladimir Vyskocil 

>
> On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus  wrote:
>
> > Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All arguments
> > people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are just a
> > smokescreen to try to get their way.
> >
> > When viewing Google StreetView you are using a service from Google. The
> > rules in relation to that, are the rules for business transactions, not
> > those of copyright.
> >
> > Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape
> > tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are
> > allowed to use their services.
>
> Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided
> material (images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I
> interpret what I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing
> neither of these !
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> According to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
> >>
> >> "In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive
> creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original,
> previously created first work (theunderlying work)."
> >>
> >> Obviously looking at google street view images and noting some facts we
> can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work.
> >>
> >> And :
> >>
> >> "
> >> When does derivative-work copyright exist?
> >> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative
> work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote,
> uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must
> contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the
> earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of
> originality.
> >> "
> >>
> >> It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at
> all, they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those
> images isn't a creative process either.
> >>
> >> In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't
> understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM
> contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street
> names, signs, ...)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Vlad.
> >>
> >> Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm  a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>  I haven't read this thread in full but it has come to my attention
> that people in this thread have argued that it would be acceptable to use
> Google StreetView pictures when mapping.
> >>>
> >>> It is not.
> >>>
> >>> The legal situation may be debatable and indeed differ from country to
> country but Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of
> their imagery and distributing them.
> >>>
> >>> As a project, our general approach to any situation where something
> was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of
> caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even
> if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so.
> >>>
> >>> So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit
> permission from Google to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Bye
> >>> Frederik
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"
> E008°23'33"
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> talk mailing list
> >>> talk@openstreetmap.org
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > m.v.g.,
> > Cartinus
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[vegard]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:58:11AM +0100, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
> On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus  wrote:
> 
> > Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All arguments
> > people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are just a
> > smokescreen to try to get their way.
> > 
> > When viewing Google StreetView you are using a service from Google. The
> > rules in relation to that, are the rules for business transactions, not
> > those of copyright.
> > 
> > Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape
> > tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are
> > allowed to use their services.
> 
> Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided 
> material (images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I 
> interpret what I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing 
> neither of these ! 

I'm sorry, but this statememt is just plain wrong in regards to OSM.

When (and I say when) we get good enough that we are the default map to
be used in online services, we want to be absolutely sure that neither
Google or other sources of information (that we are not sure that we are
allowed to use) can come and say that "hey, we own large parts of your
database, pay up!".

I'm not speaking about the likelihood of getting sued by Google, but I
thought the general consensus was to be on the safe side when it
comes to copyright questions.

Any wrongfully data will also destroy *my* work, especially if I have
based my work on top of that again. I can guarantee that *I* will
be pissed, not at the Google out there that demands their data removed,
but at the culprit that added it to OSM in the first place.

So anyone who considers adding stuff that is not 100% OK to copy is
destroying the project from within, not helping it.

Period. 
-- 
- Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Vladimir Vyskocil]

On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus  wrote:

> Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All arguments
> people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are just a
> smokescreen to try to get their way.
> 
> When viewing Google StreetView you are using a service from Google. The
> rules in relation to that, are the rules for business transactions, not
> those of copyright.
> 
> Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape
> tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are
> allowed to use their services.

Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided material 
(images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I interpret what 
I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these ! 

> 
> 
> 
> On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> According to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
>> 
>> "In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation 
>> that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously 
>> created first work (theunderlying work)."
>> 
>> Obviously looking at google street view images and noting some facts we can 
>> see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work. 
>> 
>> And : 
>> 
>> "
>> When does derivative-work copyright exist?
>> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it 
>> must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative 
>> variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain 
>> sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work 
>> for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.
>> "
>> 
>> It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at all, 
>> they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those 
>> images isn't a creative process either. 
>> 
>> In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't understand how 
>> one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM contributors 
>> look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street names, signs, 
>> ...)
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Vlad. 
>> 
>> Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm  a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>  I haven't read this thread in full but it has come to my attention that 
>>> people in this thread have argued that it would be acceptable to use Google 
>>> StreetView pictures when mapping.
>>> 
>>> It is not.
>>> 
>>> The legal situation may be debatable and indeed differ from country to 
>>> country but Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of 
>>> their imagery and distributing them.
>>> 
>>> As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not 
>>> totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If 
>>> someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are 
>>> people who say that it might still be legal to do so.
>>> 
>>> So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit 
>>> permission from Google to do so.
>>> 
>>> Bye
>>> Frederik
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> m.v.g.,
> Cartinus
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

[OSM-talk] Overpass API v0.7: Polygons, Areas and more

[Roland Olbricht]

Dear all,

Overpass API 0.7 has finally reached its long expected version 0.7:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/versions

There are essentially three major changes:



In addition to bounding boxes, now also polygons can be used to cut out a
region for download.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#By_Polygon
A simple example is a part of my home town in Germany:

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=(node(poly:"50.7+7.1+50.7+7.12+50.71+7.11");<;);out;

More general, almost all examples from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Language_Guide#Sample_map_calls
can be adapted to the polygon variant. The only restriction is that polygons 
can only be used as borders for nodes. Please use one of the various recurse 
statements to get ways and relations from it.

If you want to use a polygon like the output of rel2poly as a boundary, you can 
convert it with the following script:

#!/usr/bin/env bash

echo -n '(node(poly:"'
awk '{ if ($1 != "1" && $1 != "polygon" && $1 != "END") printf $2" "$1" "; }'
echo '");<;);out;'

and then send the output (let's call it "request.txt") with

wget --post-file=request.txt http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter



The second change improves area handling.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#By_Area
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#By_Tag
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#Query_for_Areas
If you want to download a city (with well-formed boundary), for example the 
medium German town Alfter, you can just use

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?area[name="Alfter";];(node(area);<;);out;

Again, the (area) clause is yet restricted to nodes, but the Map Call Examples
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Language_Guide#Sample_map_calls
show how to get the complete data of the desired flavor from this.

In the back direction, you can use the improved coord query to almost do 
reverse Geocoding:

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=is_in(50.75,7.21);out;

tells you in which city and country I currently are (latitude 50.75, longitude 
7.21). For those, who prefer JSON, the same thing in JSON:

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=[out:json];is_in(50.75,7.21);out;

(works also with all other examples)

Do you want to know where else on the world are placed named "Birlinghoven"? 
Just call

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=[out:json];node[name~"Röttgen"];foreach(out;is_in;out;);

or more concise

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=[out:json];node[name~"Röttgen"];foreach(out;is_in;area._[admin_level~"6|8"];out;);

And, chaining operators makes that possible also for streets:

http://overpass-api.de/api/interpreter?data=[out:json];way[name~"Elberfelder 
Straße"];foreach(out;>;is_in;area._[admin_level~"6|8"];out;);

... unless you are hit by way too much results :)



The third change is different handling of HTTP headers. This is a highly 
technical matter, mostly to enable proper CORS. Additionally, syntactically 
malformed requests now get a "400 Bad Request" reply to conform to standards. 
Please see
http://www.overpass-api.de/command_line.html#headers



I'm happy that I have been able to address with this extensions several feature 
requests. The next version will exclusively care on a proper migration to 
64-bit node ids. As Overpass API uses unsigned integers, I have about three 
years time to do that, but I'm confident to be faster :)
I expect that be done before Christmas and the next round of feature requests 
to be implemented in January.

Happy querying,

Roland

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