[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Tom Lee]

> I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good
enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but that cogent argument
thing you mentioned is missing either way.

I and many others have been investing considerable energy into the
OpenAddresses project because of ambiguity surround ODbL's implications for
geocoding. OA is now over 200M address points collected from government
sources under open licenses; OSM currently has 56M features with
`addr:housenumber`.

Obviously, not all of those 200M points belong in OSM. But many of them do.
OpenAddresses does not have the toolchain or community needed to improve
and maintain that data. Ultimately, those datasets should enter a
collaborative space where they are accessible to and improvable by all. In
the not-too-distant future, I suspect I will need to adjust a point when
the local pizza place has their drone drop my order on the roof
<http://media.salon.com/2015/03/Screen-Shot-2015-03-11-at-10.59.45-AM-1280x808.png>.
I want to do that work once in OSM, not a hundred times in a hundred
different closed geo databases.

OSM is already good enough to make geocoding services *better* for many
geography types and locations. The plausible mechanism by which it becomes
*self-sufficient* and then *great* at geocoding is through network effects
and concrete needs, not through individual pizza purchasers complying with
the Terms of Service printed on the box containing their dinner.

To me, this means making sure OSM-enabled geocoding services can be
constructed alongside proprietary data; and that their results can be used
by enough people to make the project's improvement matter to them.





On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
>
> Am 12.10.2015 um 23:43 schrieb Mr. Stace D Maples:
>
> ..
> Neither of the projects was scrapped because we *couldn’t* use OSM for
> the project, but because we couldn’t determine IF WE COULD use OSM for our
> particular uses.
>
> ...
>
>
> And you or your legal department approached the licensor of the data and
> asked for an opinion on your use of the data?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151013/f5ef77ec/attachment.html>