[talk-au] ODBL and real life...
For the longest time it was claimed ODBL would better protect data than CC-by-SA in some jurisdictions, with the US being one of those. However the opposite seems true, since the above claim was based on the premise that creating maps wasn't a creative enterprise. The ODBL doesn't place a limit on what license produced works can be licensed as, they can be published as PD/CC0. In any case unless the copyright license contains no derivative clauses people are then able to derive data from produced works and that derived data can be used to build a vectorised database. There is one clause here where countries with database rights, when the data re-enters those countries the database right might re-apply, but this doesn't apply for countries like the US (or Australia for that matter). Although I'm told that the above section of Database Directive in EU is untested in court, and I think some CC licenses already waive database rights and going into the future I believe creative commons plan to include this in more licenses. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is available, now would be a good time to move these tags onto new, more accurate ways, using imagery, prior to the boundaries disappearing (with the loss of other information e.g. names). (Even if the boundaries weren't disappearing, it would still be good to create new ways, as the boundaries often aren't accurate.) (This would be a good project for someone with spare time. I'm still doing edits from my SA trip a month ago, and will be continuing this for at least the next week.) Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 19 June 2011 19:32, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is available, now would be a good time to move these tags onto new, more accurate ways, using imagery, prior to the boundaries disappearing (with the loss of other information e.g. names). (Even if the boundaries weren't disappearing, it would still be good to create new ways, as the boundaries often aren't accurate.) Assuming that the source tag was left it would be very trivial, you could use the XAPI to pull these. However, it's my experience a lot of these ways have been realigned to aerial imagery, which is what tends to break these boundaries so much. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:32:58 +1000 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: On 15/06/2011, at 3:15 PM, John Smith wrote: The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Some of these boundaries have been edited to include highway=* and waterway=* tags (mainly in areas with (at the time) no good imagery). How easy is it to get a list of these ways? Now that better imagery is available, most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the places I did. And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 19/06/2011, at 7:56 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: most of those places don't have better imagery, certainly not the places I did. Some places do have better imagery, or in some cases GPS traces (I noticed today some of the Barrier Hwy north of Burra is done on a relation - I have too much other stuff to do to do this now). And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide once I see what the map looks like after changeover - in the meantime I'll keep mapping here. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. Nearly 12 months since you raised this thread last it was also answered then. Yes, SVG is an interesting case. If the SVG is produced for display it is simplified and normalised, making it a extremely poor data source for re-import into a new database. (same as per images) Depends what data you want to extract. If you just want to extract factual information, an SVG produced for display is perfectly fine. Of course, I don't see anything in the ODbL which allows you to extract those facts from a produced work. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. Nearly 12 months since you raised this thread last it was also answered then. Yes, SVG is an interesting case. If the SVG is produced for display it is simplified and normalised, making it a extremely poor data source for re-import into a new database. (same as per images) If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
JohnSmith your four changesets today are missing descriptive changeset comments. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits The barrier here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480159 does not advise of the source you used. The connected way claims yahoo as source, but that seems unlikely at the Yahoo resolution there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35893671 The Warialda Creek edits http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480260 also claim Yahoo as the source. Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: JohnSmith your four changesets today are missing descriptive changeset comments. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JohnSmith/edits The barrier here http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480159 does not advise of the source you used. The connected way claims yahoo as source, but that seems unlikely at the Yahoo resolution there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35893671 The Warialda Creek edits http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8480260 also claim Yahoo as the source. Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 15 June 2011 06:15, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 June 2011 12:16, Gary Gallagher g.null.dev...@gmail.com wrote: I've been working on my suburb (Brunswick East), and keep coming across tangled messes of ways caused by the boundary data effectively floating above different ways. Roads are being connected to the boundary instead of the the road. The road or other way has been moved to create a clear path for the boundary and vice-a-versa. I presume the overlapping sections of the boundary could be merged with the underlying way. Has anybody had any experience doing this and what are the potential pitfalls? The current boundaries will be removed in the near future, so if I were you I wouldn't spend to much time fussing over them. Not true. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 19 June 2011 16:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully restrictive terms to be placed on the produced works, but is there really a realistic threat? End of the day we are an open project who distribute open data under extremely liberal terms. The barrier to successfully reverse engineering produced works is high, while downloading ALL our data from http://planet.osm.org is extremely low. We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 03:12, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully A simple admission that the previous email is a valid argument would have sufficed We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti Nice spin on things, except they need to adhere to copyright like everyone else, however what I've pointed out is completely legit and has no recourse. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Not everyone here has decided to give up on OSM. I'm going to decide once I see what the map looks like after changeover - in the meantime I'll keep mapping here. Rudeness won't get you anywhere. I am not permitting an irrevocable licence on my contributions. I never was, so I didn't contribute map updates to Garmin or Sensis or Google. I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. Fair enough. As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only. Guess that's you gone, then. Bye. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/rationalising-administrative-boundaries-tp6477097p6493901.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20/06/11 07:20, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. With all due apologies to any good lawyers reading this, no license whatsoever deters uncaught dishonesty; and at best still curbs those of good intent. I thought communal projects were supposed to encourage the opposite behaviour? Hasn't it occurred to anybody this is simply the wrong tool - for a problem of its own making? Cue old joke about how good it feels to stop hitting yourself on the head.. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I should have been clearer. OSM is attributed on the right hand side of the map, but they (UN) are violating the letter of our CC-BY-SA license. There would be no violation under ODbL. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. Do you care that they are not sticking to the letter of our existing license? I certainly don't care, but I would prefer see them not in theoretical violation... I am an advocate of the ODbL because it makes our lives easier and makes it easier for people to use our map data without getting tangled up in licensing. Now returning to thread... Sure we could make 'produced works' more restrictive, but the negative consequences would out way the benefit. The Open Knowledge Foundation / Open Data Commons (organisation which created ODbL license) and LWG's legal council think there is sufficient protection already without the need of adding a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause requirement on the produced works*, which I think John Smith is advocating for. This has all been discussed to death during the drafting phase of the ODbL license back in 2008/2009. *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
Quoting Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:10:47 +1000 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: And as they won't be pulled from fosm why should I be concerned? Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Rudeness won't get you anywhere. Actually, my comment was in relation to your rude comment. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... Now you're being rude. It does matter - if you don't put a comment (and I happen to think that your usual fixed stuff comment is woefully inadequate), then it could be construed that your edits were copied from other sources. If you actually did survey it, then why not say so? Also, if you abandon OSM for FOSM, if this data is contaminated, it will also contaminate FOSM (assuming FOSM will be using OSM CC-BY-SA data). Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 09:29 +1000, Mark Pulley wrote: Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... Now you're being rude. Actually, I would suggest it is Richard who is being rude in this situation, or is this a new policy to ask people publically to confirm any sources for edits they have made without a source tag (or with a source tag that I doubt). In the interests of consistency Richard, would you also like to contact the following members who have made edits on June 19th around Sydney and who also failed to include a source tag for their edits: Franc, gopher, dexgps? It does matter - if you don't put a comment Are you also raising this issue with everyone who uses potlatch in live edit mode, or is JS just easy pickings today? then it could be construed that your edits were copied from other sources. If you actually did survey it, then why not say so? Also, if you abandon OSM for FOSM, if this data is contaminated, it will also contaminate FOSM (assuming FOSM will be using OSM CC-BY-SA data). One can only assume that the edits were copied or derived from some source, otherwise it would be a creative art and out-of-place for OSM. What do you mean 'contaminated'? It may surprise you to know that some data that 'contaminates' OSM with regards to the ODbL, can safely exist in current OSM and FOSM with no legal problems. If this data came from a CC-BY-SA source and he hasnt accepted the CTs, then where is the problem? Can you seriously sit there with a straight face, while OSM data is on the edge of being devastated in this country and find the most pressing issue is someone not adding a source tag for a single barrier node (plus some other minor edits)? One wonders whether you would raise the same issue about any other users if they hadnt dissented so much against the foundation, political trolling at its best. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I should have been clearer. OSM is attributed on the right hand side of the map, but they (UN) are violating the letter of our CC-BY-SA license. There would be no violation under ODbL. What is the violation under cc-by-sa? and where are they offering a copy of their modified database? I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. Do you care that they are not sticking to the letter of our existing license? I certainly don't care, but I would prefer see them not in theoretical violation... I am an advocate of the ODbL because it makes our lives easier and makes it easier for people to use our map data without getting tangled up in licensing. I'd be an advocate of the ODbL if it weren't for the fact that it makes it much much harder (nearly impossible) to use map data without getting tangled up in licensing (the need to offer a copy of the modified database, which in some cases may no longer exist). Now returning to thread... Sure we could make 'produced works' more restrictive, but the negative consequences would out way the benefit. The Open Knowledge Foundation / Open Data Commons (organisation which created ODbL license) and LWG's legal council think there is sufficient protection already without the need of adding a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause requirement on the produced works*, which I think John Smith is advocating for. This has all been discussed to death during the drafting phase of the ODbL license back in 2008/2009. *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause. The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual information obtained from reverse engineering. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause. The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual information obtained from reverse engineering. LGPL would be a better analogy anyway, and it is clear that LGPL derivatives cannot be released under a less restrictive license, only under a more restrictive one. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 20 June 2011 05:00, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I was invited to join a CC-by-SA project, was aware of which licence was appropriate for me at the time of joining, and will not be part of the obscure and doubtbul licence project. Fair enough. As of today, contributions to OSM are ODbL+CT only. Guess that's you gone, then. Bye. Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] rationalising administrative boundaries
On 20/06/11 11:49, James Andrewartha wrote: Ah, that welcoming OSM spirit. Yes, it's easy to forget sometimes that we're all friends here. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
Quoting David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 09:29 +1000, Mark Pulley wrote: Quoting John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 20 June 2011 02:11, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Please clarify for us the sources of these edits? What does it matter since I'm never going to agree to the CT... Now you're being rude. Actually, I would suggest it is Richard who is being rude in this situation, or is this a new policy to ask people publically to confirm any sources for edits they have made without a source tag (or with a source tag that I doubt). Maybe Richard should have asked him privately first - I was mainly responding to John's attitude that it didn't matter. It does matter - if you don't put a comment then it could be construed that your edits were copied from other sources. If you actually did survey it, then why not say so? Also, if you abandon OSM for FOSM, if this data is contaminated, it will also contaminate FOSM (assuming FOSM will be using OSM CC-BY-SA data). One can only assume that the edits were copied or derived from some source, otherwise it would be a creative art and out-of-place for OSM. Obviously there had to be some sort of source - the question is, what is it? Did he go there (quite possible, as I know John does go to that part of the country). What do you mean 'contaminated'? It may surprise you to know that some data that 'contaminates' OSM with regards to the ODbL, can safely exist in current OSM and FOSM with no legal problems. If this data came from a CC-BY-SA source and he hasnt accepted the CTs, then where is the problem? If that is the case, then there is no problem (and I'm not surprised) - that's why I included several ifs in my post. The possible contamination could be if he copied it from a copyright map. I am hoping that he didn't do this, but as his initial response to Richard's question was what does it matter, I thought that needed clarification. [snip] find the most pressing issue is someone not adding a source tag for a single barrier node (plus some other minor edits)? [snip] This wasn't initially raised by me, so I'll let someone else answer this. David Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] JohnSmith edits on 19 June 2011
On 20 June 2011 14:49, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: Maybe Richard should have asked him privately first - I was mainly responding to John's attitude that it didn't matter. Well, what does it matter now that they're going to start deleting non-CT data? Obviously there had to be some sort of source - the question is, what is it? Did he go there (quite possible, as I know John does go to that part of the country). A couple of the changes were from past surveys, but I just don't take as much pride or put as much effort in these days because community no longer seems to matter so why should I bother putting in extra effort? The possible contamination could be if he copied it from a copyright map. I am hoping that he didn't do this, but as his initial response to Richard's question was what does it matter, I thought that needed clarification. To the best of my knowledge, I've only used sources compatible with CC-by-SA. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
