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

Alex Barth alex at mapbox.com
Sun Nov 2 23:45:53 UTC 2014


I have two questions on the Collective DB alternative:

> The derivative database consists of the data that has been used as the
input data for the geocoding process, as well as the data that has been
gained from OpenStreetMap in the process. Any additional data that may be
linked to this data, even sitting in the same logical database table, is
however not considered to be part of the derivative database (instead it
forms a collective database together with the derivative database) and
therefore, does not have to be shared under the ODbL.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#.22Collective_Database.22_alternative

1. Why is the input data part of the Derivative Database?
2. This language is not explicit about Geocoding Results from other
databases that are stored in the same database. Would they be part of the
Derivative Database?

An example to clarify my question in (2):

Say I have a database of Starbucks locations with addresses. I use
OpenStreetMap to geocode all addresses and store geocoding results (lat lon
pairs) from OpenStreetMap next to my existing records. A handful of
addresses failed to properly geocode so I use a geocoder with proprietary
data to backfill the results.

What specifically constitutes the Derivative Database here?

A) the input data + records I copied from OpenStreetMap
B) A + any additions of the same kind of Content, aka the lat lon pairs I
added from the proprietary geocoder




On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Rob,
>
> On 08/21/2014 06:42 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> >> It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or
> >> correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion.
> >
> > The page asserts:
> >
> > "Geocodes are a Produced Work
>
> [...]
>
>
> > The rest of the page then silently slips
>
> [...]
>
> I have tried to present the two different viewpoints in two columns. On
> the left is Alex' original version which claims what you summarized in
> your message (that geocodes are produced works etc.); on the right is a
> version that explicitly claims "A database of Geocodes is a derivative
> database by the definition of the ODbL" - which seems to be exactly the
> statement that you were aiming at, no?
>
> The "blanks" that need filling are the consequences of this different
> interpreatation for the various use cases. I added one for use case #1,
> but only an empty column for use cases #2-#4 and #7. I added no extra
> column for #5 and #6 because those struck me as identical under both
> interpretations but of course I might be wrong.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20141102/71d1d762/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list