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

[Alex Barth]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> If you apply this to your above example, the addresses would be subject
> to SA (however no further information), and while potentially one could
> infer that these are likely the addresses of the store locations, no
> further information would needed to be disclosed*.
>

So I think I follow: in a database of store locations [1], where
coordinates have been added through OSM-based geocoding, only the
coordinates (latitude/longitude pairs) from OpenStreetMap are subject to
share alike. The store names, street names, house numbers, etc. wouldn't be
subject to share alike, they didn't come through the OSM-based geocoder -
nor any coordinates that haven't been added through the OSM-based geocoder.

While this reading is better than the uncertainty we have now it is not
practical beyond well informed users. To appropriately handle geocoding
under this practice, a geocoder application would not only have to expose
on a granular level where data was sourced from [2] - but a geocoder user
would have to store this information in a granular way to be able to
release data appropriately.

[1] Chain Retailer example (number 1):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
[2] Assuming a complex geocoder with a fallback to appropriate third party
data.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20140727/a7918d9a/attachment.html>