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

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Tue Oct 28 00:06:03 UTC 2014

On 10/27/2014 4:47 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
> Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion here [1]. Also 
> copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for better addressing in 
> OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree with [2].
> Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] - thanks 
> particularly to Frederik for this work. However, we have two competing 
> visions for how to interpret geocoding. Column 1 of the wiki page 
> interprets the information queried from OpenStreetMap in a typical 
> geocoding request as Produced Work, thus not extending share alike 
> provisions to geocoded data. Column 2 interprets the content pulled 
> from OpenStreetMap in a geocoding process as a Derivative Database but 
> the database this content is inserted to as a Collective Database.

I'm wondering if we should replace "geocodes" with "geocoding results" 
throughout the page. I think it improves clarity as to what is being 
discussed, and geocodes is not a term in common use for what we are 
discussing. Thoughts? It shouldn't change the meaning.

Given the lack of mention of a *database* of geocodes, as it stands I 
don't think column 1 helps with any standard use cases, where you will 
have many geocodes in a database. What do you think the status of a 
database of geocoding results is under the interpretation in column 1?

Those who I've talked to believe that in principle column 2 supports 
their use cases - it is just a matter of bringing clarity to it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20141027/c951ee1f/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list