[Imports] Microsoft Buildings Import Inquiry

[john whelan]

Scenario one depends on the licensing of the tax data even if it is on
paper.

Remember we live in different countries with different rules.

Have fun but scenario two looks even more doubtful.

Cheerio John


On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, 3:04 pm Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:54 AM John Whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > By this definition any import of data that has as part of its process
> each item added that the item is inspected visually using the todo list is
> not an import.
> >
> > There are a lot of building outlines that are being brought in in this
> way currently.  Are they exempt from the import guidelines?
>
> There's a whole continuum here, and some room for judgment. Consider
> the following:
>
> 1. I'm out mapping in my neighbourhood, and forget to jot down a house
> number. When I trace the building footprint, I notice the extra house
> and look it up on a paper print of the tax map.
>
> 2. The same scenario, except that I have a database of address points
> and look up the address point there.
>
> 3. The same scenario, but I open that database as a separate layer in
> JOSM swap layers, and click on the address point.
>
> 4. The same scenario, but I copy-and-paste the house number rather
> than retyping it.
>
> 5. The same scenario, but I develop a plugin to search for address
> points within the building footprint and offer me the opportunity to
> accept or reject them.
>
> 6. The same scenario, but now I do it for all building footprints in a
> selected region that don't have addresses already, accepting or
> rejecting them one at a time.
>
> 7. The same scenario, only instead of a visible area in JOSM, I use
> the entire city or county.
>
> I think that nearly everyone would agree that 1 is not an import, and
> that 7 is. (despite the fact that I'm still offered the opportuinity
> to accept or reject addresses.)
>
> I've been entirely comfortable with up to about item 4. without
> discussion, on the grounds that it's not a mechanical edit.  Even 5.
> doesn't bother me all that much, and I've been tracing enough building
> footprints lately that I think it might add value for me to spend a
> few hours working that idea up. Beyond that, I'd want to talk, but I'd
> expect that given the fact that the data are Public Domain by law,
> that applying addresses to existing building footprints that don't
> have them would be relatively noncontroversial. (Yes, Frederik, I know
> that you'd object!)
>
> There's room for judgment here. Some would content that if you
> consulted any external data source, ever, regarding the feature, that
> it's an import. (Some would take the hard line that if I learnt about
> the existence of a trail by reading about it in a copyrighted
> guidebook, that I'm permanently mentally contaminated and shouldn't
> even map that trail in the field!) There are others who would contend
> that as long as the data are license-compatible and our handling
> comports with the guidelines for mechanical edits, that the
> formalities are unnecessary.
>
> I'm not aware of any successful effort to draw a bright line.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20190214/43d5382c/attachment.html>