[OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Wed Sep 8 09:58:46 BST 2010 

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx> wrote:

>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> >
> > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this info
> is
> > useless for the rest of us reading it.  As you can see there are way too
> many
> > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just
> adding to
> > the overload.  If you have provided the details to the data working group
> - then
> > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for
> you to
> > continue this investigation/discussion with.
> >
> I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read
> previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by
> Richard and 80n I believe) to do so.
>
> Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly
with Google, as you are the copyright holder.  The OSMF and the Data Working
Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder -
you are.







> Eric Jarvies
>
> > Sam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx>
> >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. <
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22
> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 7,  2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep  7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Also, as  more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker
> >>>>> and  OSM editors are using similar sources.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I  understand this and the context you are explaining it in.  But
> how
> >> does  this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data?  This edit was not
> some
> >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and
> others, it
> >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very
> unique and
> >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up
> in
> >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now.  I was just
> shocked  to
> >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM
>  coastline,
> >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if  they
> are now
> >> using OSM data.  In short, there really is no other 'similar  source' in
> this
> >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or  got it
> from
> >> someone else who got it directly from OSM.
> >>>
> >>> Dear  Eric,
> >>>
> >>> It is hard for me to say what happened.  What you  describe above does
> >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a  source after your
> >>> edit, but before you repaired it.  If I haven't  overlooked something;
> >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee  mistake?
> >>
> >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the  initial shock of
> seeing my
> >> mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then  now on Google
> MapMaker(I'm
> >> talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then  looked at what is
> and what
> >> is not possible to edit on Google MapMaker... and  coastlines are NOT
> possible
> >> to edit by contributors, or at least my user account  will not allow it.
> >>
> >>> And if there
> >>> is no other innocent  explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM
> >>> yourself did you? ;-)
> >>
> >> No, I have never contributed data to the MapMaker repo.
> >>
> >>> Then  80n's description above is correct.
> >>> Infringement is much more likely to  be a result of ignorance rather
> >>> than malice.  It is still  infringement but it might best be resolved
> >>> with a please and thank you  than with a nasty-gram.
> >>
> >> I was merely curious if Google had started using  OSM data, simply
> because I
> >> was painfully reminded of that terrible coastline  screw-up I made, that
> was the
> >> bane of my initial OSM editing experience(not  knowing that the
> coastline is not
> >> rendered immediately/regularly).  So  apart from the initial shock of
> seeing it
> >> replicated on Google's MapMaker a week  or two after the initial
> incident
> >> occurred, I was just downright curious why it  would be there, as I
> thought
> >> Google did not use OSM data.  So this was a  curious fact finding
> mission
> >> wrought from a screwed-up coastline editing  experience... nothing more.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I do still recommend  that you share the location and details with
> >>> OSMers you trust with more  experience than you have; you did describe
> >>> yourself as a  newbee.
> >>
> >> I emailed the way to the email address you provided me  previously,
> thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You might, as 80n described,  decide to pursue this with GMM yourself.
> >>> I'd probably try to reach the  GMM contributor who made that edit,
> >>
> >> I could not find indication of  this... I was not allowed to edit the
> GMM
> >> coastline whilst logged into Google...  perhaps other users are able to
> do so...
> >> but I doubt it.
> >>
> >>> if
> >>> that information is available.  Or, you may decide to ask somebody
> >>> else in the community to do that for you.  Perhaps somebody at your
> >>> local OSM meetups, mapping parties or local chapter.
> >>
> >> I am my local  chapter :(
> >>
> >>> Or you can
> >>> report this to the Data Working Group  though they prefer if you have
> >>> made some initial attempt at contact on  your own.
> >>
> >> No, this was not my objective... I merely wanted to know if GMM  was now
> an OSM
> >> user, and if not, I just wanted folks at OSM to be made aware, if  for
> no other
> >> reason then to be made aware.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If GMM does  not
> >>> provide a method to contact editors, the idea of contacting Google  Map
> >>> Mapker as a whole does sound a bit daunting.
> >>
> >> I have contacts  at Google, specifically in their data acquisitions
> department,
> >> as I've had  dealings with them in the past pertaining to my own data,
> so
> >> contact would not  be difficult, but as stated, that was not my
> intention.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I think your point about not publishing the location is worth
> >>> considering.  In past, other contributors have provided links to
> >>> examples.  That might make an interesting discussion on this list
> >>> outside of the context of this specific edit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In what  sense?
> >>
> >>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> legal-talk mailing  list
> >>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> legal-talk  mailing list
> >> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100908/a4e846be/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list