[OHM] Aren't deleted OSM features reviewed for inclusion?

[Tim Waters]

Hello,

in the past we talked about the notion that an OSM mapper can say "here's a
building that's been demolished, let me archive this in OHM" and press a
button in JOSM, where it asks for any temporal data given (assumption of
end_date is the date of addition) and for that building to be added to
OHM.  This would be of benefit to both OSM and OHM, and could likely help
OHM grow.

I've always personally considered it a possibility that OHM would be a
place to show everything that used to exist, and theres only a little step
towards this should also include things that existed in the past and which
also exist now, e.g. a castle, a road, a coastline.  If would of course be
much bigger than OSM in terms of data...

Licensing - given OHM's close association with OSM I think past discussions
have sided towards that it would most likely be ODBL.  I generally think
ODBL is where its most likely to be, if not explicitly set out.
I think getting people interested and mapping is more important than
setting a license at this time though.

Interesting story: The first data in OHM were actually from OSM - they were
a couple of Burning Man Playa plans from different years mapped and added
by Mikel who hacked on OHM early on.

Most historical data, at least the historical maps are public domain / cc0,
however - so there is an argument to have it as open as possible. I think
in that situation, that the project would limit itself to those eras, in
the UK that would be around 1930, and therefore not include OSM data at
all. But this wouldn't be ideal as I think having the ability to use OSM
data is worth a slightly more restrictive licence. Consider mapping many
European cities where the majority of the buildings are over 100 years old.

The situation is murky as in all my face to face talks about OHM the most
interest has been about old stuff and historical mapping, both from
geographers, historians and technologists and that's where I'd like to see
the focus on.  I've no objection to  ODBL it seems to have worked well for
OSM!  We'd have to ask these interested parties - I don't think they share
their data or if they do release it, they don't care about open data -
being stuck in their own academic silos.

Regards,

Tim







On 17 November 2017 at 03:13, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:

> On 11/16/17 5:20 PM, David Wisbey wrote:
> > So far I haven't been able to make much of this Open Historical Map.
> > I am a huge contributor to Openstreetmap and would also like to help
> > with OHM. It occurred to me that it would make very good sense to use
> > deleted features from OSM.
> there are intellectual property considerations. i'm not sure we ever came
> to
> a final decision, but OHM is pretty likely to end up with something like a
> CC0 license. it would not be appropriate to take ODBL licensed data from
> OSM into OHM without explicit permission from the original mapper.
>
> richard
>
> --
> rwelty at averillpark.net
>  Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
>  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
>  Java - Web Applications - Search
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Historic mailing list
> Historic at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20171120/0afd9143/attachment.html>