On 28/11/2008 18:02, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 17:16 +0000, David Earl wrote:
>> On 28/11/2008 16:23, Richard Weait
>>> Population also gives us a nice objective data point that can often be
>>> found on the sign at the edge of town. It's been in map features for a
>>> while. We just need to use it.
>> I thought I addressed that one earlier.
>>
>> Yes, indeed, that is my first preference.
>>
>> However there is a problem about adding population to places in the UK
>> in particular and probably other countries as well, that is the data is
>> crown copyright (no single piece is because it is a fact, but the
>> collection of population data as a whole has database copyright attached
>> to it).
>
> Yes, I saw that first time around. Which is why I suggested that we
> collect it from signs and other unencumbered sources. Are you telling
> me that surveying population from posted signs (as a collection) would
> infringe the crown copyright?
Signs giving population are very rare in the UK, it's not like the US
cowboy movies where the baddy goes out to the sign at the city limits
and crosses out "population: 504" and writes in 503.
There just isn't such information to be found routinely on the ground. I
know it's common in the US, but I can't recall seeing it anywhere else
I've been in Europe.
I don't know what other "unencumbered" information there would be. I
don't think there is anyone else here who counts population other than
the census people, though I imagine local authorities have a good
estimate in their tax records.
But as I said, I think area will do just as well from our point of view
as well as or instead of population.
> I'm boggled. There is case law that supports this?
It's the same database copyright that we are considering basing osm's
new license on I believe.
I originally used a district council document to put populations on all
the villages in my district. I checked the document and I couldn't see
any copyright statement in it at all. But their website did have, and so
I researched a bit more and found that the state ("the crown") does
indeed explicitly assert copyright over all census material (which, of
course, we taxpayers have spent millions of pounds collecting). It does
permit (by explicit free license which you have to ask for) widespread
end use of the data, but explicitly forbids derivations. (I paraphrase a
little). I ended up removing it all again because it was quite clear
that my use was infringing.
It's just the same as OS data: in other countries they take an
enlightened view. In this country they make you pay through the nose for
what you've already paid for in taxes and actively prevent interesting
uses of public data in doing so. That's why we are here doing what we're
doing.
I have no idea whether this has been supported in court, but database
rights were introduced to cover exactly such cases.
> So perhaps population is impractical in UK because of this. Is it worth
> adopting place + population where the data is available?
Possibly, though as I said there's not a whole lot out there anyway. I
think I need to develop a metric from combined sources that I can use.
David
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
