Igor Brejc wrote: > ... I think we are too concentrated on generating > content (i.e. mapping) as opposed to actually using this data for some > meaningful purpose. I guess this is natural, since majority of OSM users > are mostly map data producers, and only the minority is actively > involved in map "consuming". > > My point is that we should listen to people who are trying to use our > mapping data (both for non-profit and commercially). After all, isn't > it the whole point of OSM to produce something useful? Or is just so > that we can show a nice world map on the main page?
Personally, I'm here as a "map consumer". I was looking for handheld GPS maps about 18 months ago and OSM was the only option that was not (a) expensive, (b) a bit rubbish or (c) both. Also, Ordnance Survey paper coverage was a bit poor where I live because it hadn't kept pace with landscape changes (railways, mining etc.). Speaking as someone who spends the occasional weekend walking around the Peak District and dropping by a pub or two, I'm a happy camper - where OSM has coverage it's usually better than anything else. However, wearing another hat, I work for a company that occasionally gets asked by customers how to display business information on a map. Usually they don't have much money to spend (does anyone?). OSM data ought to be an option, but there are a couple of issues: One is coverage, discussed better here: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2010/01/shitholes.html than I could. The other is licensing (yes - I know - I'm sorry). I'm not a lawyer, but even I can have a go at navigating through Google's "maze of twisty little licence pages, all different" and come out with an answer at the end (which is usually "no, you can't legally do what you were hoping to"). Unfortunately, OSM seems to be more complicated. I've read the legal FAQ in the wiki. I've read the "Common licence interpretations" page - and I still have no idea whether a particular use constitutes a "derivative" or a "collective" work. I suspect that many prospective users will have given up before the "we strongly advise you to obtain legal advice" bit (despite that being the "correct" answer, of course). What would really help the "interpretations" page would be some examples, similar to the ODL Use Cases, but for the current licence. For instance, a company (let's call them "Elcheapotech") wants to plot its customers' locations on a map. It doesn't want to update the data, or sell anything based upon it - it just wants a background seeing where things are. They won't object to displaying an attribution on-screen. They probably wouldn't object if someone said that they had to host a copy of the original OSM data, but they would object if they had to make public their overlay. They're not selling their overlaid data - just using it internally. Is that allowed? If yes (or no), why? (or why not?). The way that I read the 1st part of the 4th paragraph of the "interpretations" page suggests that someone thinks that this would be a "derivative work", but the last part suggests "collective work". If the 2nd of these is correct, what happens if Elcheapotech wants to sell the expertise that it has gained by doing the same thing that it has internally as a service for other companies? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk