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

[Rob H Warren]

The topic of licensing is an ongoing one, with some rather heated arguments occurring at LODLAM earlier this year. 

I still favour a 'with citation' license myself but due to the multitude of data sources that are available, I'm beginning to think that tag-level licensing might be a necessary feature of OHM.

-rhw




> On Nov 17, 2017, at 7:00 AM, historic-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:13:43 -0500
> From: Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
> To: historic at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OHM] Aren't deleted OSM features reviewed for inclusion?
> Message-ID: <2385d0d7-2ebe-0d4a-40f3-50b1978761c3 at averillpark.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------