That's some great imagery if he can read the name signs on that street... Greets, Floris Looijesteijn
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Thomas Davie <tom.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed > that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably > have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source. So for > example, in this case, the user could reasonably create the exact same way by > tracing bing, and hence is fine in terms of copyright breach. The less > destructive way to do this would be to simply mark the way as odbl=clean > rather than deleting the original and creating a new one with the same node > positions though. > > Thanks > > Tom Davie > > On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
