[Talk-GB] WeeklyOSM 294

[Jinal Foflia]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue #294, is now available online in
English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the
OpenStreetMap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/7084

*Among others:*

   - Mapillary closed a further financing round, getting access to 8
   million US Dollars for further expansion.
   - Having issues with JOSM authorization? Look in for a solution
   - The call for venues for SotM 2017 is now open!
   - Want to know more about how to use OSMLint to detect errors in
   OpenStreetMap based on vector data tiles?
   - FIONA is a satellite based personal navigation assistant for indoor
   and outdoor use

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM is brought to you by ...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM

Cheers,
Jinal Foflia 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Neil Matthews]

It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag 
that. I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!


If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll 
adversely affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map 
look more complete.


However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of 
a long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik 
renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially 
as that way I find other non-obvious issues.


Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the 
public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the 
perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.


But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And 
pub for the whole area.


Cheers,
Neil

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a 
comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset .


The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). 
However what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been 
applied to the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings 
etc.). A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this 
way, however rarely with as much detail as this particular one. The 
general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.


The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property 
are largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer 
gardens, children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready 
interpretation of things like access tags and resolution as to which 
car park belongs to the pub. This approach is clearly less cumbersome 
than using a relation, such as associatedCarpark (invented I believe 
by Gregory Williams in Kent).


The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM
would find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate
to the building.
  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
would be opening_hours).
  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how
we can tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on
IRC a label node, but this implies a relation: do we want to
replace a simple node &/or area tag with a node, an area & a
relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It
seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for
inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for
a while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather
daft in such cases.
  * Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes
over the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to
a building outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the
node & area centroid will tend to be very close. Thus the two
different ways of mapping relate to each other in a clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map 
schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all 
the relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on 
the other hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. 
(This makes sense as in many cases it is the building which is the 
place of worship not the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a 
supermarket as the building rather than the whole area including car 
parks, petrol stations etc.


Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that 
the area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that 
there are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping 
the whole area offers some advantages.


One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to 
tag the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with 
a tag such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM 
elements than used at the moment, and would provide for the 
identification of associations with car parks etc (and would work fine 
with multipolygons for pubs where the car park is across the road or 
otherwise removed from the pub.


This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different styles 
evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it would be nice 
if we could find a consistent style which satisfies most needs.


Cheers,

Jerry

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Lester Caine]

On 11/03/16 17:26, SK53 wrote:
> Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the
> area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there
> are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the
> whole area offers some advantages.

Having just spent 2 months mapping schools I can see the logic of
something which seemed a problem previously. The tools do not yet fully
follow this style of tagging, but it is the ideal approach.

SITE
Area
amenity=pub
Details for the pub are at this level.

Within the site ...
parking, play areas, buildings and so on can be mapped and tagged, with
building=pub and other details.

Replace amenity=pub with school, collage, hospital and so on and each
area can be properly mapped.

Where an amenity is within another larger area such as a shopping mall
then the 'amenity' may well be an area within a larger building so
having the same tags for amenity and building makes perfect sense. Now
we just need the tools to add back in the links between the larger area
amenity and it's components?

-- 
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-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

Well done and congratulations. 

Building or land tags can go on multipolygons, in fact it manages cases more 
complicated than this one better. It does seem silly to have just one tag in a 
different place though.

--
Andrew 


From: Edward Betts 
Sent: 11 March 2016 10:03
To: impo...@openstreetmap.org; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

I've uploaded my first changeset - Places of worship in Birmingham.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37766888

This is a modification to 10 ways and one relation.

The relation is a multipolygon representing Birmingham Oratory. The uploader
has put the wikidata tag on the relation, which looks wrong. The other tags for
the church are on the outer way. I will fix this before I do any more uploads.

--
Edward.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Sad News

[Andy Townsend]

News reached the OSM Weekly team recently that Bogus Zaba*, occasional 
poster to this list and regular contributor to www.weeklyosm.eu, has 
passed away after a short illness.  According to a note from his wife 
"the cause of OSM was very dear to his heart and he greatly enjoyed his 
virtual interactions with the OSM community".  We'll all miss him - 
whether it's wrangling the OSM Weekly into English, #OSMSchools updates 
in North Wales, or all his other contributions.  Best wishes to all who 
knew him and especially to those close to him.


- Andy

* http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bogzab

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

Thanks SK53, you're right. I meant the West Midlands.

SK53  wrote:
> I presume you mean the West Midlands: firstly Birmingham is there &
> secondly, I suspect East Midland mappers are less enthusiastic about this
> sort of thing.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> On 11 March 2016 at 19:15, Edward Betts  wrote:
> 
> > Chris Hill  wrote:
> > > On 11/03/16 18:03, Edward Betts wrote:
> > > >I've uploaded my first changeset - Places of worship in Birmingham.
> > > >
> > > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37766888
> > > >
> > > >This is a modification to 10 ways and one relation.
> > > >
> > > >The relation is a multipolygon representing Birmingham Oratory. The
> > uploader
> > > >has put the wikidata tag on the relation, which looks wrong. The other
> > tags for
> > > >the church are on the outer way. I will fix this before I do any more
> > uploads.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since more than one person has asked you to check with local mappers
> > before
> > > making these uploads and there is an unanswered question about the
> > licence,
> > > I would ask you to stop uploading any more of these data until these
> > > questions have been addressed to the satisfaction of the mappers in GB.
> >
> > I was specially approached by mappers from the East Midlands and asked to
> > upload this data. Sorry for not making this clear.
> >
> > There is no problem with the license. I'm not deriving anything from
> > Wikipedia
> > or Wikidata. I'm just adding a link to Wikidata. There are already lots of
> > links to both Wikipedia and Wikidata in OSM.
> > --
> > Edward.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Colin Smale wrote:
> > As we are not copying the content from Wikipedia/Wikidata, but just 
> > a reference
> 
> Unfortunately it's not quite that simple.
> 
> The matching is done by co-ordinates. The co-ordinates in Wikidata could be
> held to be information copyrighted by Google. Consequently you could argue
> that the matching - "the selection or the arrangement of the contents of the
> database", to use the language from the Database Directive - is itself a
> derivative of Google's map data.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another - I've probably studied the
> related issues as much as anyone on this list and it's not obvious to me
> which way it would fall. But anything with the potential to affect such a
> large amount of OSM data in the UK needs a thorough legal review, lest we
> inadvertently encumber thousands of uses of OSM with Google IP.

The way I see it is like this. OSM uses the Open Database License (ODbL),
Wikipedia is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC-BY-SA). Wikidata
is public domain or CC0. 

OSM uses European law which includes database rights. Wikimedia projects are
governed by US law which does not recognize database rights.

Under US law coordinates are facts, they can't be copyrighted. There is no
protection for coordinates under US law. Therefore Wikimedia has no problems
importing coordinates from Wikipedia into Wikidata.

Under European law individual coordinates aren't copyrightable, but a large
group of them can be considered to constitute a database and database rights
come into play.

Wikimedia does not assert database rights for Wikidata or Wikipedia.

According to taginfo there are 63,782 OSM objects with a wikidata tag.

See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikidata

Nobody has any legal objection to adding Wikidata tags to OSM. We aren't
violating the database rights of Wikidata by including 60k+ links to Wikidata.

We assume that these wikidata tags have been added by hand.

The question is whether automating the process of adding wikidata tags to OSM
somehow causes a copyright or database right violation.

I'm specifically not copying any data at all from Wikidata to OSM. I'm not
copying the coordinates, labels or any properties from Wikidata. The only
thing I'm adding is a link. I think it is fine for the matching software to
consider the location of an item in Wikidata and OSM when deciding if they are
a match. This does not make OSM a derived work of Wikidata.

There is significant fuzziness in the matching for the location. The matching
algorithm consider Wikidata items and OSM objects within 1 kilometres of each
other when looking for a match.

I hope this answers the question about the legal ramifications of adding links
from OSM to Wikidata.

-- 
Edward.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[SK53]

I presume you mean the West Midlands: firstly Birmingham is there &
secondly, I suspect East Midland mappers are less enthusiastic about this
sort of thing.

Jerry

On 11 March 2016 at 19:15, Edward Betts  wrote:

> Chris Hill  wrote:
> > On 11/03/16 18:03, Edward Betts wrote:
> > >I've uploaded my first changeset - Places of worship in Birmingham.
> > >
> > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37766888
> > >
> > >This is a modification to 10 ways and one relation.
> > >
> > >The relation is a multipolygon representing Birmingham Oratory. The
> uploader
> > >has put the wikidata tag on the relation, which looks wrong. The other
> tags for
> > >the church are on the outer way. I will fix this before I do any more
> uploads.
> > >
> >
> > Since more than one person has asked you to check with local mappers
> before
> > making these uploads and there is an unanswered question about the
> licence,
> > I would ask you to stop uploading any more of these data until these
> > questions have been addressed to the satisfaction of the mappers in GB.
>
> I was specially approached by mappers from the East Midlands and asked to
> upload this data. Sorry for not making this clear.
>
> There is no problem with the license. I'm not deriving anything from
> Wikipedia
> or Wikidata. I'm just adding a link to Wikidata. There are already lots of
> links to both Wikipedia and Wikidata in OSM.
> --
> Edward.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

Chris Hill  wrote:
> On 11/03/16 18:03, Edward Betts wrote:
> >I've uploaded my first changeset - Places of worship in Birmingham.
> >
> >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37766888
> >
> >This is a modification to 10 ways and one relation.
> >
> >The relation is a multipolygon representing Birmingham Oratory. The uploader
> >has put the wikidata tag on the relation, which looks wrong. The other tags 
> >for
> >the church are on the outer way. I will fix this before I do any more 
> >uploads.
> >
> 
> Since more than one person has asked you to check with local mappers before
> making these uploads and there is an unanswered question about the licence,
> I would ask you to stop uploading any more of these data until these
> questions have been addressed to the satisfaction of the mappers in GB.

I was specially approached by mappers from the East Midlands and asked to
upload this data. Sorry for not making this clear.

There is no problem with the license. I'm not deriving anything from Wikipedia
or Wikidata. I'm just adding a link to Wikidata. There are already lots of
links to both Wikipedia and Wikidata in OSM.
-- 
Edward.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

I've uploaded my first changeset - Places of worship in Birmingham.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37766888

This is a modification to 10 ways and one relation.

The relation is a multipolygon representing Birmingham Oratory. The uploader
has put the wikidata tag on the relation, which looks wrong. The other tags for
the church are on the outer way. I will fix this before I do any more uploads.

-- 
Edward.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[SK53]

Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a
comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset
.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However
what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to
the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick
query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely
with as much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to
map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are
largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens,
children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things
like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub.
This approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as
associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

   - Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
   way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would
   find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
   - Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to
   the building.
   - Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
   apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be
   opening_hours).
   - Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we
   fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell
   renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node,
   but this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area
   tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to
   deal with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for
   inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a while.
   In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such cases.
   - Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over
   the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building
   outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid
   will tend to be very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate
   to each other in a clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map
schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all the
relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on the other
hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. (This makes
sense as in many cases it is the building which is the place of worship not
the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a supermarket as the building
rather than the whole area including car parks, petrol stations etc.

Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the
area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there
are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the whole
area offers some advantages.

One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to tag
the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with a tag
such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM elements than
used at the moment, and would provide for the identification of
associations with car parks etc (and would work fine with multipolygons for
pubs where the car park is across the road or otherwise removed from the
pub.

This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different styles
evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it would be nice if we
could find a consistent style which satisfies most needs.

Cheers,

Jerry
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Richard Fairhurst]

Colin Smale wrote:
> As we are not copying the content from Wikipedia/Wikidata, but just 
> a reference

Unfortunately it's not quite that simple.

The matching is done by co-ordinates. The co-ordinates in Wikidata could be
held to be information copyrighted by Google. Consequently you could argue
that the matching - "the selection or the arrangement of the contents of the
database", to use the language from the Database Directive - is itself a
derivative of Google's map data.

To be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another - I've probably studied the
related issues as much as anyone on this list and it's not obvious to me
which way it would fall. But anything with the potential to affect such a
large amount of OSM data in the UK needs a thorough legal review, lest we
inadvertently encumber thousands of uses of OSM with Google IP.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-with-Wikidata-now-covers-UK-and-Ireland-tp5869546p5869613.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Colin Smale]

Richard, 

As we are not copying the content from Wikipedia/Wikidata, but just a
reference, it sounds analogous to the many discussions there have been
about hyperlinks to copyright-infringing content, i.e. the question of
whether the link itself constitutes a copyright infringement. The link
itself (such as the wikidata ID) is "owned" by wikidata/wikipedia
itself, I would suggest...irrespective of any potential claims on the
content of the linked data.

--colin 

On 2016-03-11 13:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Without wanting to be a rotten party-pooper, could I just raise the licence
> issues with this?
> 
> Wikidata co-ordinate information is chiefly sourced from Wikipedia, which
> claims to be CC-BY-SA licensed.
> 
> Wikipedia co-ordinate information is chiefly sourced from Google Maps[1 [1]].
> 
> Google expressly prohibits their map data being used "to create or augment
> your own mapping-related dataset (or that of a third party), including a
> mapping or navigation dataset"[2 [2]], which is what is proposed here. (There
> are other relevant prohibitions.)
> 
> Wikipedia has a much looser attitude than OSM to copyright on factual
> information for various well-rehearsed reasons. That's their call, but we
> cannot simply take Wikidata's assertion of CC0 on trust. Neither CC-BY-SA
> nor Google-owned compilations of factual data are compatible sources for
> ODbL+CT.
> 
> I am far from certain of the interplay of "substantial" and "insubstantial"
> in Database Directive and ODbL terms here, and to what extent rights subsist
> in data that has been compared but not directly copied. But it needs careful
> thought, ideally with references to case law, which it doesn't yet appear to
> have had.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools
> [2] https://developers.google.com/maps/terms
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-with-Wikidata-now-covers-UK-and-Ireland-tp5869546p5869607.html
> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 

Links:
--
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools
[2] https://developers.google.com/maps/terms
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andy Mabbett]

On 10 March 2016 at 17:57, Edward Betts  wrote:

> I've extended my search for matches between OSM and Wikidata again. It now
> covers all of the UK and Ireland.

I know from our past exchanges just how much effort Edward has put
into this initiative (at my instigation) and I want to acknowledge
that, and thank him for it.

[Also, this is my first post to talk-ie - hello, everyone!]

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/03/2016 12:40, Andy Mabbett wrote:

Tickets have also been raised


(to save anyone else looking it up)

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2680

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11541

I don't see anything for P2.  I haven't looked for other editors.

Cheers,

Andy


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi all,

Without wanting to be a rotten party-pooper, could I just raise the licence
issues with this?

Wikidata co-ordinate information is chiefly sourced from Wikipedia, which
claims to be CC-BY-SA licensed.

Wikipedia co-ordinate information is chiefly sourced from Google Maps[1].

Google expressly prohibits their map data being used "to create or augment
your own mapping-related dataset (or that of a third party), including a
mapping or navigation dataset"[2], which is what is proposed here. (There
are other relevant prohibitions.)

Wikipedia has a much looser attitude than OSM to copyright on factual
information for various well-rehearsed reasons. That's their call, but we
cannot simply take Wikidata's assertion of CC0 on trust. Neither CC-BY-SA
nor Google-owned compilations of factual data are compatible sources for
ODbL+CT.

I am far from certain of the interplay of "substantial" and "insubstantial"
in Database Directive and ODbL terms here, and to what extent rights subsist
in data that has been compared but not directly copied. But it needs careful
thought, ideally with references to case law, which it doesn't yet appear to
have had.

cheers
Richard

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools
[2] https://developers.google.com/maps/terms




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-with-Wikidata-now-covers-UK-and-Ireland-tp5869546p5869607.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andy Mabbett]

On 10 March 2016 at 20:53, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> What plans are there for maintenance of this data in future,  it is a move 
> away from human readable tags so errors will go unnoticed.

Various tickets have been opened, requesting that the authors of the
major editing tools make them display the labels from Wikidata, and/
or the titles of the equivalent Wikipedia articles. Since these labels
are multilingual, this should /increase/ accessibility for non-native
speakers.

> Mappers are very unlikely to add new wikidata tags in the way we add 
> Wikipedia.

Tickets have also been raised, asking that the addition of Wikipedia
tag also trigger the addition of a Wikidata ID.

Besides, editors seem happy to add a variety of other identifiers.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

Good question.

OSM editors and viewers could be changed to integrate more closely with
Wikidata. An OSM editor could suggest to the mapper a matching Wikidata item
to tag. We could have the editor automatically look up the label from the
Wikidata item in the preferred language of the person editing the map.

The map view on the main OSM website includes basic Wikipedia support, the
Wikipedia tags becomes links to Wikipedia. Support could be added for
Wikidata, this could include looking up the Wikidata label in the appropriate
language and links to Wikipedia. We can also show other information from
Wikidata like the name of the architect or a photograph.
-- 
Edward.

Philip Barnes  wrote:
> What plans are there for maintenance of this data in future,  it is a move
> away from human readable tags so errors will go unnoticed.
> 
> Mappers are very unlikely to add new wikidata tags in the way we add 
> Wikipedia. 
> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

I've added admin_level=8 to the output. This is useful for selling matches
grouped by districts, London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs.

For example:

http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/region/Greater_London

-- 
Edward.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

I've adjusted the output to show the Wikipedia category path that the matcher
followed to find the object. These two items are within the 'Dublin (City)'
category, so end up being considered as cities. The reason they match is
because one of the tags I consider for matching cities is landuse=residential.

http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/county/County_Dublin/Cities

My software tries to skip categories named after cities, but it is confused
because the category "Dublin (City)" doesn't exactly match the city name.

I'm going to remove landuse=residential as a tag that could match a city.

Thanks for the bug report,
-- 
Edward.

Rory McCann  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The list for "Cities in Dublin, Ireland" is strange.
> http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/county/County_Dublin/Cities
> 
> It accurately has the one city (Dublin), but it also lists the British
> Ambassadors residence, and a student accomodation. Both are accurately
> matched up OSM/Wikipedia/Wikidata, but they aren't cities.
> 
> -- 
> Rory

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Gregory]

I particularly want to echo Brian's advice to request permission from a
mapper in each county. Use the OSM wiki to find local mappers/groups for
that consultation.

A summary table would be helpful if it includes: county name, when the
mechanical edit was done, the status (done, refused, not yet consulted),
and the local representative's username).

Similar to the Naptan import.

>From a railway junction South of Newcastle,
Gregory.
On Mar 11, 2016 7:57 AM, "Colin Smale"  wrote:

> Thanks Edward, that has removed the uncertainty and looks much better know.
>
> //colin
>
>
>
>
> On 2016-03-11 08:48, Edward Betts wrote:
>
> I've updated the category names in the database to remove " by country"
> from
> the end.
>
> Edward Betts  wrote:
>
> The category names are from Wikipedia. I start with the "Airports by
> country"
> category and just grab the subcategories for United Kingdom and Ireland.
> In a
> previous version I had code to strip the ' by country' from the end. I'll
> try
> and restore it to reduce the confusion.
> --
> Edward.
>
> Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> Hi Edward,
>
> I took a look at the result pages and I noticed a small, but pervasive
> typo. All the listings of a category per county are actually titled per
> countRy on all the pages. For example on the Greater London page
> http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/region/Greater_London you see
> under the "categories" heading "Airports by country" instead of
> "Airports by county". From the content it is clear that you mean county.
>
>
> Only one letter, but a huge difference in meaning...
>
> Thanks
>
> Colin
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb