On 29 September 2013 18:27, Andrew <andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > OpenStreetmap HADW <osmhadw@...> writes: > >> My own assumption is that they are not a valid source, but I've just >> discovered one route, by a contributor who has added several bus >> routes, where their bus route finder web site has been quoted as a >> source from version 1 of the relation. > > Have you tried contacting the mapper?
I sent them a message expressing concern just before posting to the list. I'm really after moral backing that this is a breach, as I'd be surprised if they took my word for it. They have an investment in quite a few bus routes that they, probably, wouldn't want redacted. (I'm actually a bit concerned that other people have been using such sources (very prolific and not checking if they are already part mapped), but haven't given any source, so I can't be sure..) Where people quote sources like this one (or more generally quote a URL, rather than a standard source tag), I think they are thinking more in wikipedia terms. Wikipedia tends not to concern itself with database copyrights, as long as the exact wording of a source isn't reproduced. For wikipedia, the source goes to show that the material is not "original research". On the other hand, OSM actually prefers original research - a survey is the highest form of source. Incidentally, that means that care needs to be taken in using wikipedia to source OSM; importing from multiple articles may, indirectly import a copyright database.. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb