On 4 August 2010 15:06, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Maybe worth taking a clue from Cloudmade here, who have a similar situation > with their Mapzen editor - they go through some effort to make the process > as painless as possible for their users while still requiring them to > register with OSM *as well as* with CM. Yes, we've looked quite closely at what Cloudmade do. They're a site aimed more at the mapping community than general user/media website use, so I'd argue that the cases are different. Certainly their editor is still way too complex for the average user (for our definition of "average user").
> I'm pretty certain there was some kind of web-based tag editor just before > OAuth was finally set up but I cannot find the mailing list references. > There wasn't a huge discussion back then - it was clear to everyone that > what that editor was doing could be a proof of concept at most because the > account would soon be banned otherwise. Hmm. On what grounds would such an account be banned? > One reason why we disallowed anonymous editing is to make sure that > community members can always be contacted by other community members if > their edits are worthy of discussion in one way or another. Do you have a > strategy of how do deal with incoming messages for the "nearmap" user? Will > you assign staff to forward these messages to the appropriate individual? Yes, and yes. There is actually another angle to this; the edits are being submitted by NearMap to OSM. The edits are given to NearMap by NearMap users, under an appropriate licence (that's part of the terms and conditions under which they'll register with us), and NearMap then submit them "separately" (in a legal sense) to OSM. So the edits are NearMap's, in a legal sense, and submitted by NearMap. From that point of view, it makes most sense for them to be submitted under the NearMap account. We have to balance legality and ease of use. > As I said, without knowing the internal Cloudmade procedures, I am pretty > sure there will have been a number of people in that organisation who'd have > said "are you mad, every additional signup button loses us 50% of people..." > but still they do what they do. For a reason, I guess. Indeed, and we have our reasons also; this isn't an arbitrary choice, it's been the subject of internal debate :) > I kind of understand your situation but I think the way forward would be to > either use OpenStreetBugs or set up an OpenStreetBugs like system yourself, > maybe integrate that in your editor - so that users without an OSM account > can only place OSB markers, and those (the slightly more advanced users) who > have an OSM account can then pick these up and fix OSM data properly. Maybe > you can even do that in a way that lets people "start easy" in your > application and then progress if they feel more comfortable with it. Interesting idea, but one aim of this whole effort is to increase the number of people who can contribute to OSM and help bring it to the point where OSM data is a usable way to do geocoding or address-search (which it isn't at the moment). Using OSB doesn't really meet that aim. Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I see your pain, but ease of getting map data into OSM doesn't trump concerns > of legality and ownership of data. Um... and we're not arguing that it does! It should be fairly clear from our website that we take legality and ownership of data at least as seriously as OSM :) >In particular ODbL+CT will require a contractual relationship (i.e. the >contributor terms) between OSMF and the user. If you are not exposing the user >to the sign-up process, they are not agreeing to this contract. No, they're agreeing to terms and conditions with us. We (NearMap) are agreed to the terms and conditions with OSM, and submit the edits, as NearMap, to OSM. We're not trying to do some sort of back-to-back legal framework; that would never work. The edits come from NearMap. >Your lawyers can of course find a way which satisfies them (and you) that >there is sufficient agreement between your user terms and CC-BY-SA/ODbl+CT, >but for any >novel way of getting data into OSM, the onus is on the importer to satisfy >_OSM_, not just themselves. That's the conversation we need to have here, and >potentially >also that you need to have with OSMF. (I would suggest that, as a courtesy, >you drop OSMF a line and ask them to consider the matter.) Glad to. Can you provide a way to contact someone there who'd be willing to have the conversation? >I'm of the opinion that tracing from aerial imagery does not carry through any >IP from the photography. Our lawyers, looking at more than just English law, would beg to differ :) But like you say, if that were true, people would be frantically tracing from Google imagery... and they're not. I would think that the OSM position would be that it's not worth the *risk* to trace without it being clear that the licence allows it, since if it turned out that your opinion is wrong, that would lead to data loss. Which is one reason we make it clear that you can derive data from our images under CC-BY-SA, to remove that risk. Cheers b -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
