[OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
sunburned.surveyor at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 20:16:19 BST 2008
I think the concerns about fragmenting OSM are valid. The problem with
two databases and two toolchains is that you've just cut the
"collaborative power" of OSM in half. I really think a situation in
which all OSM users get to benefit from the PD data will be best. This
will really make the whole idea a lot more palatable for the larger
If we do set up a separate database and toolchain, I think we should
definitely consider a mechanism (automated or manual) to regularly
integrate public domain contributions into OSM.
I suppose this could be trickier than I realize. For example: Someone
uploads a route to the PD database while someone else uploads it to
the main OSM database. Now you've got a conflict resolution problem.
Still, I really think it best if all of OSM gets to benefit from the PD data.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Nic Roets <nroets at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, as Frederik noted in the other thread, keeping it low key is best. I'm
> thinking parallel database running the same toolchain. No tools for
> automatically propagating to the main database.
> I'm not trying to fragment the project and I'm hoping no-one else is. I'm
> trying to maximize the value of my mapping data.
> If OSM/PD gains popularity, it will only be because that's what the
> community wants. And that's a big 'if' that starts with someone saying he's
> willing to host and maintain the database.
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
>> Nic Roets wrote:
>>> Many OSM contributors indicated that they are interested in a PD
>>> alternative (Richard, Frederik, myself etc). I believe that having a PD
>>> database (subset) many have a few applications. Like showcasing OSM on
>>> website where a viral license will be an issue. Google Earth etc.
>> None of which explains how, on a practical level, it is supposed to work.
>> As I understand it the PD database would operate in parallel and people who
>> wanted to would upload to both that and OSM but while that can work for new
>> objects I don't see how it can work where an existing object is being
>> Not that I really care about how it works unless it is an official part of
>> OSM that I and the other admins are going to be expected to provide
>> resources for, which is where we came in with a request for resources to be
>> allocated to the project.
>>> We all want to improve OSM data quantity and quality. We just haven't
>>> agreed on weather a viral license will help or hinder. Just like we haven't
>>> agreed on JOSM vs. Potlatch.
>> No, but some of us are trying to work to achieve the best consensus
>> possible within the existing project while others appear to be trying to
>> fragment the project.
>> Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the legal-talk