Apparently this ownership is more complex then at first sight. A way is defined by its nodes and its tags. Maarten only took a look at the tags.
cetest did not only add a residential tag, but created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this particular way with GPS acquired data, later assisted by satellite data, even before Bing became available. way data: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history Nodes data (just one) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches, and I did not investigate anywhere else. Next topic of action: Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked (GPS available, though not uploaded) through large parts of the south west in Holland, will show if the new author actually drove the route, copied the data that I created, or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond. Regards Gert -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:md...@xs4all.nl] Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!! On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: >> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote: >>> "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply >>> modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to >>> highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you >>> have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not >>> to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here. >> >> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09: >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history> >> >> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset. >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history> >> >> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. >> Offending >> changeset seems to be >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339> > > I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history > > AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change > unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole > area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag. The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL. That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and can be called strange at any point in time. You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view very much. Regards, Maarten _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
