[Imports] [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN Building Import

joe.sapletal at charter.net joe.sapletal at charter.net
Sat Apr 22 14:09:14 UTC 2017


No, I don’t check my changeset comments daily.  Weekly, at best.  I know I’m not the only one, I reached out to another user two months ago that has a ”fill in the missing buildings” project that overlaps my area and I’ve yet to hear back.  Which frustrates me a bit, they are digitizing buildings that my project already provides, orthogonally from a stereo environment, with a lot of tags.  Unfortunately, they may be replaced by my project.  We’ll that’s a little off topic for now.

Thanks for reaching out for further clarification.  At this time all I can say is: “…we can be listed on the Contributors page, but that I shouldn’t go beyond that with any additional wording that may be misconstrued as legal language from our attorney. “  That seemed to appease others two weeks ago, what has changed since then that this is again an issue?  We are working on replacing the outdated disclaimer, but you know government in the US.  Nothing gets done quickly.  I wouldn’t be building momentum for the project if I thought there was anything standing in the way that I couldn’t overcome.


From: Michael Reichert
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 3:58 PM
To: joe.sapletal at charter.net
Cc: imports at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Imports] [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN Building Import

Hi Joe,

Am 07.04.2017 um 19:17 schrieb joe.sapletal at charter.net:
> Ok, so for those who haven’t googled me yet and figure it out.  I work for Dakota County.

I have to apologize for my changeset comment on Monday.
I overlooked the quoted statement above.

> So I talked to my boss today and he said we can be listed on the Contributors page, but that I shouldn’t go beyond that with any additional wording that may be misconstrued as legal language from our attorney.  This disclaimer predates the free and open policy and we’ve heard from others that it might be a tiny sticking point for some in the community.  It has been our intent since the creation of the policy that anyone and everyone can use the data, especially OSM.  

I see you are proceeding with the import. Although you wrote that you
work for the county I would prefer that the permission exists in writing
[1] before you continue with the import.

> Because of this conversation, I now get to write a new disclaimer as the old one has become an issue.  It obviously was going to need it eventually.  So if anyone has some suggestions on that, please send them my way so we can get that through the attorney in the coming weeks and avoid and confusion moving forward.  😉

Here is a suggestion:
> If the data of [organization] is integrated into the OpenStreetMap
> database, it is sufficient to attribute [organization] as a source in
> the long list of data sources. It is then not necessary  anymore that
> third parties who use OpenStreetMap data attribute [organization] as
> a source.

Best regards


[1] either as an email or as a scan of signed sheet of paper (uploaded
on the wiki) or as a statement on a website

PS Do you regularly have a look into the email inbox of your account
DCJoeS_dcmnbuildings? Even import accounts are expected to respond to
changeset comments. :-)

Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20170422/731f8aa8/attachment.html>

More information about the Imports mailing list