[OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim
Andy Robinson (blackadder)
blackadderajr at googlemail.com
Wed Feb 20 10:47:07 GMT 2008
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 20 February 2008 10:33 AM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim
>> Interspersed within all the facts in the OSM data dump are a number
>> of non-factual elements. There are both accidental errors and
>> probably quite a few *deliberate* errors (I know of some).
>I have taken the liberty of modifying the "Copyright Easter Eggs"
>article on the Wiki to reflect that situation. Beforehand it seemed
>to imply that OSM was free of easter eggs ("because commercial data
>contains deliberate errors ... we need our own free and accurate
>geodata"), which obviously isn't true any more.
>Personally, I do not support the practice of deliberately inserting
>errors into our database.
We do have genuine deliberate errors in the database, not through any
devious wish to conceal something but rather because we can't map it
accurately. A simple example here:
The A38 runs through a tunnel that turns 90 degrees below a built up area. I
know for certain nobody has surveyed it accurately so what is in OSM is a
close representation. Close representation is what most of the OSM database
is built on, which is of course one of the questions about whether much of
the spatial data attached to the database elements is fact or not.
More information about the legal-talk