[OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Randy Meech]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Barth <alex at mapbox.com> wrote:
> Forward and reverse geocoding existing records is such a huge potential use
> case for OSM, helping us drive contributions. At the same time it's _the_
> use case of OSM where we collide heads on with the realities and messiness
> of data licensing: Do we really want to make a legal review the hurdle of
> entry for using OSM for geocoding? Or limit using OSM for geocoding in areas
> where "no one's ever going to sue"? How can we get on the same page on how
> we want geocoding to work and then trace back on how we can fit this into
> the ODbL? Geocoding should just be possible and frictionless with OSM, no?
> Shouldn't there be a way to open up OSM to geocoding while maintaining share
> alike on the whole database?

These are the key questions & I support open geocoding with share
alike applied to the whole database. How can we get clarity on this
either way? Because not clarifying this is effectively saying "no"
which I believe loses high-quality contributions.

Clarifying with a "no" or not clarifying at all will direct a lot of
effort elsewhere -- this is a shame.

In a previous role I directed a lot of resources specifically toward
OSM. With this continued lack of clarity, today I would direct them
elsewhere. That's also a shame.

> (and yes, when I'm saying geocoding I'm referring to permanent geocoding
> here, where the geocoding result winds up being stored in someone else's db)

To not support this is essentially saying that OSM is not to be used
for geocoding in the majority of desired cases. But it comes down to
what people want for the project, and where address-level effort will
go.

-Randy