<html><head></head><body>Thank you for the answers.<br><br><div>yes as of this moment this isn't applicable since I'm aligning the photos with existing OSM nodes geolocations.</div><div><br></div><div>But since not all areas worldwide actually have OSM nodes with proper geolocations, there are still areas</div><div>out there, especially hike & bike trails in natural areas, it's hard to move photos to a more accurate position</div><div>without actual imagery from a satellite. And that's what these applications offer, to use natural features</div><div>you can see from above to more accurately move the photos. <br></div><div><br></div><div>in these scenarios one would record the gpx and later add the trail based on the gpx, I'm not actually sure how</div><div>helpful it would be to add photos for trails anyway so it's really hypothetical, but I could see it might be helpful</div><div>when you're walking a bridge, later home on sequence you upload you can see surface material, structure, <br></div><div>or on the photos you can see there's stone surface, there's dirt, there's a info board:'what's on the information written?"</div><div>Tourist information, etc..</div><div><br></div><div>Again, for the actual trail you'd be using the gpx mostly .. but for photos it would make sense to</div><div>align them with the aid of natural features you can recognize..<br></div><div><br></div><div>And the scenario is as precisely formulated as I could. Exactly to avoid the "Exploring of grey areas"</div><div>a very specific scenario - with a very specific question. <br></div><div><br></div><div>" the person in question is obviously interested in exploring grey areas, and is likely to expand this further"</div><div>That's assuming and no, no intention. If that intention were there, I wouldn't ask a very specific question</div><div>to a very specific different scenario :) <br></div><div><br></div><div>The only reason is really to make photos easier to find. It's basically the same argument as using</div><div>google-search engine. You use it to find data more easy. But the data itself, isn't Google's of course.</div><div>The question would be similar as:'if I use the google search engine to find information/data on the internet,</div><div>could google claim I can't use it because I used their metadata from their search engine to find the actual data"<br></div><div><br></div><div> Anyway: <br></div><div>-----"So while this is not something that would likely ever lead to a claim"------<br><br>-----And the statement of Kathleen that she also doesn't see a real conflict here-----<br><br>I take it that for this specific scenario, use applications to change metadata of a photo, even if these applications</div><div>legally use google data to do so, and upload to Mapillary, and later use the data on the photo,</div><div>while not using the metadata of the photo, to add to OSM data, but not the metadata, wouldn't actually</div><div>violate any terms. <br><br>yes this may be grey area, but apart from:"thou shall not kill" isn't most in the law a "grey" area?<br>If everything were so clear, we wouldn't have the zillions of court cases worldwide would we? :)<br><br>I think most in the law isn't about the law itself, it's about the legal meaning and the semantic meaning,</div><div>I mean I can read for myself obviously. But being capable of reading the law, here's where most people</div><div>make the mistake and I'm asking here because I don't want to make that mistake, it doesn't mean</div><div>your interpretation of legal meaning and legal semantics is correct. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Also quite often terms of use companies state are overruled by courts OR that what seemed to be obvious</div><div>applicable the courts rule:"not in this case"<br><br>that's why I'm asking here in the legal talk.. <br><br>I'm well aware if you change just 1 factor in a scenario, the legal meaning and semantics can turn like 180 degrees.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course someone might use Mapillary photos and the metadata of these to add data to OSM..</div><div>could.. but that would be questionable and more inaccurate than the accuracy gain from satellite image in the first place anyway</div><div>since "distance and depth" of a 2D photo are nearly impossible to determine and the user wouldn't ever know</div><div>how accurate the Mapillary metadata is in the first place.. <br>I noticed some of these are off by many streets, hundreds of meters! <br></div><div><br></div><div>So I strongly doubt anyone could even assume to use the metadata of these photos for figuring out where</div><div>to put nodes.. I mean one could, but it's really wrong.. without the actual own recorded GPX or the location data</div><div>of existing nodes close by, the metadata of a photo is pretty much useless as source of geolocation .</div><div><br></div><div>There's be so much "guessing" at work then, that it's highly questionable anyone could claim you're using factual geolocation</div><div>at all.. I would strongly suggest to anyone never to use just a photo for determination of geolocations.. <br>Too many uncertainties in a 2D image if you ask me.. (did that person zoom in 2x, 4x, 8times?)<br>Are you sure that object over there is 20m or 60m from the point of the one making the photo?</div><div><br></div><div>It really comes down to getting the photos in a sequence aligned nice and smooth .. strongly doubt you</div><div>can actually use the geolocation for adding nodes.. But you can use the DATA of the image itself, to describe more</div><div>precisely the kind of node, type, like I said:'surfaces, what kind of bridge, what tourism information written there, what's the house number, etc?'<br>is that building a residential or fire department or kiosk..<br><br>Again, there's probably some kind of "grey-area" at play, but like I said I think that's always the case when dealing with the law.</div><div><br></div><div>Thus me asking here :)<br><br>Anyway, thanks for the answers once more</div><br></body></html>