[Imports] Nepal VDC's boundaries import

Rafael Avila Coya ravilacoya at gmail.com
Mon May 18 17:35:00 UTC 2015

Hi, Christoph:

Thank you for your interest in this import.

Please, find my comments inline:

On 17/05/15 13:55, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Sunday 17 May 2015, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:
>> 1) The clearly different views on the compatibility/incompatibility
>> of CC-by among ourselves (members of the OSM community). For my
>> understanding, we should have a consensus in this matter, but we
>> haven't.
>> 2) You only refer to statements made by yourself in the past. Note
>> that Sarah Hinchliff Pearson, Senior counsel of Creative Commons [1],
>> says that CC-by is compatible with ODbL, refering in fact to OSM. Is
>> she not authoritative enough? If not, why?  Do you have any legal
>> advice to refer to, that contradicts Sarah's? If she is not good
>> enough, why and whom did we consult that contradicted that reasoning
>> of hers? Can you please answer to these questions?
>> 3) Both of the links you mention on the LWG minutes are your own
>> opinion, isn't it?
> I think you are missing the point here - it has been common practice in 
> the past to obtain individual permission from right owners for 
> importing CC-BY data into OSM.  If you want to change this established 
> procedure for your import you should give a valid reason.  The only 
> reason i could imagine is that the right owner does not want to give 
> that permission - which obviously is a bad one.

I honestly think that you are missing my point. I just say that this
restriction we are putting ourselves in dealing with this
compatibility/incompatibility of the CC-by 3.0 license, with the
requirement of getting an special permission, is controversial, and not
shared by all people. It's unclear why we have to do this.

I am not a lawyer. Are you? Is Paul Norman? I am asking what counselling
have we asked for in the past that led the LWG getting to that
conclusion. At this point of the conversation, I can't see any other way
for going forward than forwarding this issue to the LWG.

>> You asked me to document the ocha:pcode and ocha:old_code tags, and I
>> did. For the sake of consistency, we will use the same unocha:pcode
>> key already described in the wiki page for the West Africa Ebola
>> crisis pcodes import last year [2]. Consecuently, we also changed the
>> second to unocha:old_code. As you can see, the unocha:pcode tag is in
>> red colour in the refered Ebola wiki, as it is in ours.
> This all looks very obscure - I already mentioned before, see:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2014-November/003564.html
> that proprietary IDs where mappers have no way to verify the validity of 
> the ID have no place in OSM.

That's your opinion. And I respect it. The inclusion/import of UNOCHA
pcodes was accepted by the community when adding them to nodes in West
Africa. They are of unvaluable importance, not only for relief
organizations in the field, but for the OSM community as a whole. It's a
very good idea in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others.



Twitter: http://twitter.com/ravilacoya


Por favor, non me envíe documentos con extensións .doc, .docx, .xls,
.xlsx, .ppt, .pptx, aínda podendoo facer,  non os abro.

Atendendo á lexislación vixente, empregue formatos estándares e abertos.


More information about the Imports mailing list