Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
From: Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 28 April 2008 20:57:45 BDT ... But one thing I learned from mapping my own area: the maps you buy are *wrong* in so many places. Maybe easter eggs, maybe bugs. In either case, don't make the assumption that just because you paid money for it or that it looks like an official looking printed map that it's actually accurate. I couldn't agree more. The one exception is our own dear Ordnance Survey. Very occasionally one may find a small discrepancy between the OS map and what appears to be there, on the ground. This is simply a case of reality being wrong. From: Chris Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 28 April 2008 21:37:28 BDT ... Climbing is a sport that kills people who don't take it seriously, but it can still be fun too. Naming routes is fun for some people. I know. I have friends who climb and I'm sure they can't all be masochists, but the odd scramble I have tried just scared me witless. A tip though - there's often an easier way up around the back. It sounds like this climbing malarky is as anarchic as OSM. You should have committees to grade climbs and approve route names and climbing police to ensure no-one ever uses a copyrighted route name without proper attribution. This is called the BMC. LOL___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
It seems my little rant about what I perceive as an unnecessarily precious approach to copyright issues ruffled a few feathers. I think everyone's plumage is spruce again now, so I just want to respond to some of the helpful guidance received. You may yet have to come across a streetname deliberately spelled wrongly or in fact any of the other possible easter eggs introduced by commercial mapmakers just to protect database rights. Using street signs and doing general surveing on the ground is the only safe option. --- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Correct! I have never actually seen one, but I'm sure they exist. However, I can make my own spelling mistakes without their help. I hope people didn't assume I'm doing all my mapping from the A-Z. I do actually go out there collecting tracks with my GPS, photographing things, naming waypoints and even remembering the odd street name. Further discussion on this topic is probably best relegated to the legal-talk list: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk If not, I would like to see them sue. This statement is exactly the *opposite* of what the OSM Foundation probably feels. Lawsuits cost money. OSM doesn't have the kind of resources that allow it to consider defending a suit a reasonable path at this time, and thus, it takes the 'moral high ground' by avoiding all the issues involved and playing it completely safe, as is the best position for a project of this nature to take. --- Christopher Schmidt also... I think this is generally the point: most people would prefer they /didn't/ sue. Even if their case didn't really have a leg to stand on, you still end up having to defend it which is more hassle than it's worth if you can simply avoid the situation in the first place. The same goes for taking street names or climbing route information from sources which claim copyright. As for whether copying the names from maps is legal, well there's plenty of opinion on this from lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Database right tends to come into it too. I get the feeling YMMV. OSM policy has always been to keep to the safe side of the argument and only allow sources which are guaranteed to be permitted. Anyway, follow ups to the legal-talk list please. --- Dave Stubbs I tried subscribing to the legal list but something seems to be broken, so I'm back here polluting the talk list - sorry! Here (I would like to see them sue) I was using what I thought was a widely-used and equally widely-understood device, colloquially known as 'irony' (though I'm sure a grammarian would correct that). I did not actually mean it literally. I like OSM and I really hope it doesn't get sued (and here I'm not being ironic). I'm all for staying on the right side of the law even if it means I might not go to heaven when I die. If anyone ever accuses me of copying a street name from a book or a map I will deny ever having set eyes on said book or map or having asked anyone who might have seen it. There is a danger I might occasionally have to lie, but it's better than getting sued, eh?. To be really safe, I'm going to start looking carefully at the street signs for copyright notices. (sort of irony again). On the other hand, on a rock face there are no signs - things can become much more subjective. Climbing (difficulty) grades, for example, are estimates - there is no hard fast rule about what makes a route a specific grade. A bunch of people climb it and make a guestimate on how hard they think it is. --- Steve Hill My original post was prompted by one about climbing route names from Chris Hill. You guys take your surnames too seriously. It sounds like this climbing malarky is as anarchic as OSM. You should have committees to grade climbs and approve route names and climbing police to ensure no-one ever uses a copyrighted route name without proper attribution. elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
Elvin: let's see if you have b to copy this place-name: http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/CanoeTraditions/6/ENZ-Resources/Standard/7/en Lucas De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de elvin ibbotson Enviado el: lun 28/04/2008 18:10 Para: talk@openstreetmap.org Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright It seems my little rant about what I perceive as an unnecessarily precious approach to copyright issues ruffled a few feathers. I think everyone's plumage is spruce again now, so I just want to respond to some of the helpful guidance received. You may yet have to come across a streetname deliberately spelled wrongly or in fact any of the other possible easter eggs introduced by commercial mapmakers just to protect database rights. Using street signs and doing general surveing on the ground is the only safe option. --- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Correct! I have never actually seen one, but I'm sure they exist. However, I can make my own spelling mistakes without their help. I hope people didn't assume I'm doing all my mapping from the A-Z. I do actually go out there collecting tracks with my GPS, photographing things, naming waypoints and even remembering the odd street name. Further discussion on this topic is probably best relegated to the legal-talk list: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk If not, I would like to see them sue. This statement is exactly the *opposite* of what the OSM Foundation probably feels. Lawsuits cost money. OSM doesn't have the kind of resources that allow it to consider defending a suit a reasonable path at this time, and thus, it takes the 'moral high ground' by avoiding all the issues involved and playing it completely safe, as is the best position for a project of this nature to take. --- Christopher Schmidt also... I think this is generally the point: most people would prefer they /didn't/ sue. Even if their case didn't really have a leg to stand on, you still end up having to defend it which is more hassle than it's worth if you can simply avoid the situation in the first place. The same goes for taking street names or climbing route information from sources which claim copyright. As for whether copying the names from maps is legal, well there's plenty of opinion on this from lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Database right tends to come into it too. I get the feeling YMMV. OSM policy has always been to keep to the safe side of the argument and only allow sources which are guaranteed to be permitted. Anyway, follow ups to the legal-talk list please. --- Dave Stubbs I tried subscribing to the legal list but something seems to be broken, so I'm back here polluting the talk list - sorry! Here (I would like to see them sue) I was using what I thought was a widely-used and equally widely-understood device, colloquially known as 'irony' (though I'm sure a grammarian would correct that). I did not actually mean it literally. I like OSM and I really hope it doesn't get sued (and here I'm not being ironic). I'm all for staying on the right side of the law even if it means I might not go to heaven when I die. If anyone ever accuses me of copying a street name from a book or a map I will deny ever having set eyes on said book or map or having asked anyone who might have seen it. There is a danger I might occasionally have to lie, but it's better than getting sued, eh?. To be really safe, I'm going to start looking carefully at the street signs for copyright notices. (sort of irony again). On the other hand, on a rock face there are no signs - things can become much more subjective. Climbing (difficulty) grades, for example, are estimates - there is no hard fast rule about what makes a route a specific grade. A bunch of people climb it and make a guestimate on how hard they think it is. --- Steve Hill My original post was prompted by one about climbing route names from Chris Hill. You guys take your surnames too seriously. It sounds like this climbing malarky is as anarchic as OSM. You should have committees to grade climbs and approve route names and climbing police to ensure no-one ever uses a copyrighted route name without proper attribution. elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
elvin ibbotson wrote: Correct! I have never actually seen one, but I'm sure they exist. However, I can make my own spelling mistakes without their help. I hope people didn't assume I'm doing all my mapping from the A-Z. I do actually go out there collecting tracks with my GPS, photographing things, naming waypoints and even remembering the odd street name. I too have collected tracks, photos, used local knowledge etc, and I've found various differences from other mapping products and what is on the ground. I've found clear copies from one product to another apparently from different sources. Some differences from the ground are probably mistakes, but some are probably easter eggs, one of which I found on Easter day - now that is irony. Diary My original post was prompted by one about climbing route names from Chris Hill. You guys take your surnames too seriously. My name is not of my making, I chose to go climbing. Climbing is a sport that kills people who don't take it seriously, but it can still be fun too. Naming routes is fun for some people. It sounds like this climbing malarky is as anarchic as OSM. You should have committees to grade climbs and approve route names and climbing police to ensure no-one ever uses a copyrighted route name without proper attribution. This is called the BMC. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
elvin ibbotson wrote: Chris Hill is worried about copyright issues with climbing routes and this is like lots of concerns I have seen expressed such as taking street names from actual street signs rather than from copyrighted material. If it's the name of the street, it's the name of the street, no matter how or where it is communicated. Street names and data on climbing routes are unfortunately a bit different though. Street names are generally hard fact - there is some government database somewhere saying what it is called, there are signs up with the name on, signs with access restrictions (one way, etc). On the other hand, on a rock face there are no signs - things can become much more subjective. Climbing (difficulty) grades, for example, are estimates - there is no hard fast rule about what makes a route a specific grade. A bunch of people climb it and make a guestimate on how hard they think it is. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
I too am relatively new to OSM and occasionally bemused by the arcane debates on the talk list. Those who know about database theory should be able to decide on the merits of namespaces. I can see the value of a structured, hierarchical approach provided it is implemented in a way we lesser mortals can understand and presented via a usable interface and I have to say I'm not sure this is always the case. I have yet to get to grips with bridge tagging, never mind relations or worrying about namespaces :-) Chris Hill is worried about copyright issues with climbing routes and this is like lots of concerns I have seen expressed such as taking street names from actual street signs rather than from copyrighted material. If it's the name of the street, it's the name of the street, no matter how or where it is communicated. Not only am I not an expert on databases but I am equally ignorant of the finer points of copyright law. But PLEASE! A street name cannot be copyright and printing it on a piece of paper or causing it to appear on a screen is hardly the stuff of intellectual property. SteveC rightly debunked the whole map copyright issue at the beginning of this month and we need to recognise humbug and treat it with the contempt it deserves. JOSM imports waypoints with GPX tracks and I would like to see Potlatch do the same, but I came across something this week about the terrifying risk of accidentally importing copyright stuff such as the location of Garmin's headquarters. What?! If Garmin put this information on every device they sell they would probably be delighted if it accidentally appeared in Open Street Map. If not, I would like to see them sue. elvin.ibbotson From: David Ebling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25 April 2008 08:46:47 BDT To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] namespaces I don't know if I count as a new user (started late 2007) but I can't see any benefit from this namespace business. I'm technically minded, but not an expert geek by any means, and not familiar with the concept of namespaces. On this occasion I find Ockham's Razor convincing. i.e. K.I.S.S. If something adds no benefit, (and I've been following this bizarre discussion and have yet to be convinced of any benefit whatsoever) then why should we add a whole load more characters to loads of the tags we add to things? It will lead to more typos, more errors, more confusion about correct tagging, increase the size of the db, and raise the barrier to entry for OSM contributors. It's already quite challenging for some new members to get the hang of the editors, and getting harder with things like relations. We don't want OSM data to only make sense to people familiar with the concept of namespaces do we? Or was that the intention? Lets keep OSM as accessible as possible. Dave From: Chris Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25 April 2008 11:28:43 BDT To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Climbing routes Leaving the namespace issue aside, how would one collect the information about climbing routes? The routes I climbed didn't have signs or the like to gather from the site. All of the climbing guides I have that describe the routes, including their name, grade, number of pitches etc are copyright. Are there copyright free sources of this information? Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
elvin ibbotson wrote: JOSM imports waypoints with GPX tracks and I would like to see Potlatch do the same It does (and has done for a while). One user seems to be having problems with GPXs created by the bundled Garmin software, but it certainly works with those created by gpsbabel. You need to click the edit link by the track itself, not the one at the top of the screen - the waypoints aren't stored in the database, so Potlatch has no way of getting them unless you tell it to work off the actual track itself. cheers Richard___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
OK, now we're completely off the original topic :-) Thanks for the tip, Richard. I hope I'm not the only user who didn't know that. elvin ibbotson From: Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 25 April 2008 14:03:26 BDT To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright elvin ibbotson wrote: JOSM imports waypoints with GPX tracks and I would like to see Potlatch do the same It does (and has done for a while). One user seems to be having problems with GPXs created by the bundled Garmin software, but it certainly works with those created by gpsbabel. You need to click the edit link by the track itself, not the one at the top of the screen - the waypoints aren't stored in the database, so Potlatch has no way of getting them unless you tell it to work off the actual track itself. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 elvin ibbotson schrieb: | I too am relatively new to OSM and occasionally bemused by the arcane | debates on the talk list. | | Those who know about database theory should be able to decide on the | merits of namespaces. I can see the value of a structured, hierarchical | approach provided it is implemented in a way we lesser mortals can | understand and presented via a usable interface and I have to say I'm | not sure this is always the case. I have yet to get to grips with bridge | tagging, never mind relations or worrying about namespaces :-) | | Chris Hill is worried about copyright issues with climbing routes and | this is like lots of concerns I have seen expressed such as taking | street names from actual street signs rather than from copyrighted | material. If it's the name of the street, it's the name of the street, | no matter how or where it is communicated. Not only am I not an expert | on databases but I am equally ignorant of the finer points of copyright | law. But PLEASE! A street name cannot be copyright and printing it on a | piece of paper or causing it to appear on a screen is hardly the stuff | of intellectual property. You may yet have to come across a streetname deliberately spelled wrongly or in fact any of the other possible easter eggs introduced by commercial mapmakers just to protect database rights. Using street signs and doing general surveing on the ground is the only safe option. - -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIEghsFUbODdpRVDwRArLYAKDH3ka04AEYwRudBVkaWiJXrHtiawCgyzuU QSktMAe8hIiPsX8+k62t3ms= =m9ys -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright
elvin ibbotson wrote: OK, now we're completely off the original topic :-) Thanks for the tip, Richard. I hope I'm not the only user who didn't know that. Probably not! I'm occasionally posting Potlatch tips and news here: http://potlatchosm.wordpress.com/ (And it's aggregated in Planet OSM - http://planet- osm.shaunmcdonald.me.uk/ ) cheers Richard___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
