<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 10/27/2014 4:47 PM, Alex Barth wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABxUzDth2ktcBb3iRA9Rxigt2_0T6UVvfJLOane2jFe3TNP0oQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion
here [1]. Also copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for
better addressing in OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree
with [2].</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] -
thanks particularly to Frederik for this work. However, we
have two competing visions for how to interpret geocoding.
Column 1 of the wiki page interprets the information queried
from OpenStreetMap in a typical geocoding request as Produced
Work, thus not extending share alike provisions to geocoded
data. Column 2 interprets the content pulled from
OpenStreetMap in a geocoding process as a Derivative Database
but the database this content is inserted to as a Collective
Database.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm wondering if we should replace "geocodes" with "geocoding
results" throughout the page. I think it improves clarity as to what
is being discussed, and geocodes is not a term in common use for
what we are discussing. Thoughts? It shouldn't change the meaning.<br>
<br>
Given the lack of mention of a <b>database</b> of geocodes, as it
stands I don't think column 1 helps with any standard use cases,
where you will have many geocodes in a database. What do you think
the status of a database of geocoding results is under the
interpretation in column 1?<br>
<br>
Those who I've talked to believe that in principle column 2 supports
their use cases - it is just a matter of bringing clarity to it.<br>
</body>
</html>