<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-text-flowed"
style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size: 12px;" lang="x-western">On
30/08/10 09:53, Jim Brown wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">TimSC wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">We have more
map data than we have before. Of course, it is not in a
<br>
single database or under a single license. Is this a bad thing?
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Actually, the amount of USABLE data can be defined as the amount in a
single database I think...
<br>
</blockquote>
I'd have to disagree with you there. Of course if there was a single
user with a single objective, there would be a single database which
was the most suited to that user. But this doesn't reflect our current
situation. We have different regional situations for mapping
contributors, and different users with differing legal demands. For
example, some Australian contributors have used a CC-BY-SA import
source to create mapping. If we then have an alternative ODbL dataset,
which is much more sparse, can you say which is best: the CC-BY-SA
densely mapped or the ODbL sparsely mapped database? I am not arguing
that the CC-BY-SA database is most appropriate in all cases. For users
who operate only in Australia, the CC-BY-SA is legally ok and much more
complete. An international user who is legally cautious might prefer
the ODbL version. The same differing requirements also is seen for
contributors. A big CC-BY-SA import can't go into a CT/ODbL database
but it could be usefully added to a CC-BY-SA fork. And perhaps OSMF
might negotiate data imports that are only compatible with CT/ODbL and
not with CC-BY-SA.
<br>
<br>
Basically, a "one size fits" all approach doesn't reflect all
contributors or users needs. If you think "one size does fit all", you
need to argue that a fork would add no value to other users (not just
yourself), and that might be difficult.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">This is
because the data in these forked data sets cannot be combined for use.
It is likely that they cannot even be rendered by OSM itself on a map
tile. They are truly islands of data, with the only common attributes
being that OSMF hosts them and that the same editors and tools can be
pointed to the data set for editing (probably as long as the editing
apis and server logic stays the same over time).
<br>
</blockquote>
For clarity, I generally agree with this.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hence, I would
still strongly argue that having multiple datasets with different
licenses is very different from having multiple tools, and does not add
value to the goal of creating the most complete map of the world. And
the reason for this is that having different licenses has a permanent
and downstream impact on the data and how it can be used.
<br>
</blockquote>
Ah, it is interesting that you said the goal of the project is "the
most complete map of the world", when OSM's goal is generally held to
be that OSM "creates and provides free geographic data". Not all users
want or need a global database. May specialist maps only cover a small
area. Don't assume everybody has the same requirements. (Extreme
example, people have discussed mapping fictional worlds and other
planets.)
<br>
<br>
On my original point, different OSM tools are available under different
licenses. The code from one can't be shared with another. This is again
similar to the situation for map databases. Effectively, the software
code was never unified and it is difficult to do an API upgrade on
every tool, for example.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Tools and
other differences do not have the same impact. They can come and go,
be revised and experimented with and the impact that they have is
limited to their users, not to their output. The data they generate
can be used in the same fashion as that generated by other tools.
Datasets with different licenses permanently affect the data
contributed to them.
<br>
</blockquote>
I am still not seeing any fundamental differences between software and
database licensing. Both determine how the tool or data may be used. So
what? That difference doesn't change how they add value to the project.
<br>
<br>
TimSC
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>