[Imports-us] Palo Alto, CA Building Outlines import

[the Old Topo Depot]

All,

Your constructive input is appreciated.  I'll be bak in a couple days with
revisions after I've incorporated address points into the workflow (Thanks
Brian).

So far a great discussion thread.

Best,


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:37 AM, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> Hello John:
>
> The Terms of Use are either compatible with ODBL or not.  If you wanted to
> spend some expensive time, you might get an IP lawyer to help you determine
> that.  Better, end run that:  you need not accept these Terms.  Present
> Palo Alto with a counter-offer and some news. You might read up the LA
> Times article http://articles.latimes.com/**2013/jul/08/local/la-me-adv-**
> map-ruling-20130709<http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/08/local/la-me-adv-map-ruling-20130709>on the recent California Supreme Court case regarding digital mapping files
> being public records.  There was also a similar case in Santa Clara County
> in 2010 (2011?).  I am not an attorney, just a Citizen.
>
> Politely request the data from Palo Alto as public records, essentially
> rejecting the stated Terms.  Together with the California Public Records
> Act (which compels data produced by public trustees to be released for only
> actual copying costs -- unless they meet certain qualified legal exceptions
> like personnel records) the records should be yours without strings
> attached.  For digital records, copying costs often cost just a pittance or
> are free if you offer a USB drive or blank DVD-ROM media, though since they
> seem to be already published on the web, it is the discussion and
> understanding (by Palo Alto that their Terms are outdated and not binding)
> that are important.  If they hand you a CD-ROM with properly requested
> public records, there can be no Terms:  they are already public records,
> and were just handed to you as such!
>
> Reminded of Palo Alto's public duty to offer you/us our (not their) data,
> the records are (according to the Court's decision) yours already without
> those terms.  Do a little research, and/or just ask: you'll discover that
> when worded carefully, politely and correctly these strategies can and do
> work.  It may be helpful if a person who lives in the City of Palo Alto (a
> beneficiary of that public trust) makes the formal CPRA request, but I
> don't think that is strictly required, just a suggestion.
>
> This is a powerful time for citizen requests of geographic data from
> public trustees in California.  The data are ours, especially as you make
> them yours.  Now that you have identified these records, enjoy them under
> your terms, not artificially-created Terms that appear to me to be an
> improper taking by the City.  Take back what's yours. You could pony up
> some lawyerly fees that set somebody back too much, and play a rich game
> with expensive imagined rights-dickering.  But I don't recommend that, it
> can get expensive.  As Palo Alto's insistence upon such Terms fades away in
> light of the Court's decision, such sand-castles-in-the-air will fall away
> eventually on their own.  Just lean against them gently and watch them
> crumble. They have ten days to produce records (especially when
> specifically identified) once you start the CPRA request clock.
>
> I'm also glad to hear of the business names, apartment names, et cetera.
>  Good show, everybody!
>
> If I had one suggestion to make about such a manual conflation of imported
> data it would be to break apart the large .osm file your workflow has
> created into 500 kilobyte to 2 megabyte chunks, arranged geographically in
> an easy-to-identify grid or snail (like arrondissements in Paris) pattern.
>  These can be given out to multiple people, and each person checks another
> person's work before it gets uploaded.  Yes, you can do this with as few as
> two people (and I have done so, with the Monterey County FMMP data), but it
> is better with three or more.  It doesn't work well with one, unless you
> have (as you are requesting) a QA Plan.  We could work on specifics of that
> in greater detail if you wish, off-list.
>
> Regards,
> SteveA
> California (a great place for making geographic data-based public records
> requests)
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Imports-us mailing list
> Imports-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/imports-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us>
>



-- 
John Novak
585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/
OSM ID:oldtopos
OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos
OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/attachments/20130723/96dd0aac/attachment.html>