Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Thanks, Alex. Clarity is exactly what is needed. Ambiguity = IRB Death. I'm going to be going through the OSM Licensing/Copyright Guidelines more closely over the next week and will comment outside this thread, if I have comments. For the record, I hardly think solving things like diarrhoeal

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Stace Regarding your first email on this topic you said - "to built a geocoding platform on Open Source software and Public Domain data that could be used to geocode research data” Could you give an example of what the geocodable string would look like (just make one up)? Is it like “1

[OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > "our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the risk > here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the cases where > OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM yet.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Alex Barth wrote: > Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we need > to be able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting > use cases and engagement on OSM, without second guessing > people's intentions and without just showing them the door to > TomTom

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > At the time, no-one was doing serious geocoding off OSM data - it wasn't > good enough. I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Am 12.10.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Mr. Stace D Maples: > .. > Neither of the projects was scrapped because we /couldn’t/ use OSM for > the project, but because we couldn’t determine IF WE COULD use OSM for > our particular uses. > > ... And you or your legal department approached the licensor of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

Steve No, not addresses (though that would be nice, too, though. Wasn’t Foursquare trying to help with that?), but geocoding to administrative boundaries,as well as POI. We were interested in building a system that could be elastic enough to geocode to esoteric localities, such as “1 km north

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > > "our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the > risk here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the > cases where OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > How is it a bad thing that OSM is used in more places where it can't be used > today and hence grows? It isn’t, as we discussed before. It’s - again - a question of what changes at what cost as discussed. In the past it’s