On Wednesday 19 March 2008 20:35:52 Robin Paulson wrote: > On 19/03/2008, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Twice no. > > > > Objects in the database are more than just shapes. To concentrate on the > > second one: The shape from the Yahoo image is better, but there are no > > names visible in the aerial photographs. If I don't know the name (and > > whatever other attributes) before looking at the AND data, then AND is > > still source of part of the information contained in the object. > > well, yes but you're moving the goal posts here. what you're > suggesting is no different in concept to a user looking up street > names in google maps/microsoft live maps/etc. and adding them to the > database, having traced the shape from the yahoo imagery. so, we treat > it in the same way: unless and until we (or the owners of the data) > suspect copying is going on, we assume people are playing by the rules > and getting their data legally, and do nothing
I'm not moving any goalposts and this is very different from copying data from "forbidden" sources. I'm also not talking about causing trouble, but about improving the quality of the data in the database. I'm talking about combining the best parts of the data from two "approved" sources and reflecting both sources in the source tag. This is not possible, without deleting and recreating the original object, if the source tag becomes read-only. -- m.v.g., Cartinus _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
