[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Tom Lee]

> Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding
context?

I think there are two goals that a successful geocoding guidance should
meet:

1. Enable greater use of OSM data for geocoding, including scenarios in
which sharealike provisions must not be applied (e.g. geocoding personally
identifiable or sensitive business information)

2. Protect the integrity of the OSM project and its sharealike requirements
-- i.e., don't open a backdoor by which the project can be copied without
ODbL attaching.

At the risk of putting words in others' mouths, I've seen some people argue
that a third goal should be met: compelling geocoding users to share the
results of their geocodes. It's sometimes suggested that this could be a
valuable source of POIs.

I don't think this is a workable goal for a guidance. Even if it did induce
people to contribute data back (rather than simply avoiding OSM geocoding),
it seems unrealistic to expect the community to figure out how to establish
that there are no other IP rights at play, nor to shepherd each
contribution through the import process.

But more to the point, this is the wrong theory of action for how geocoding
can compel people to improve the map. If more people can run geocoding
services built on OSM data, more people will have an incentive to improve
the map in order to improve their results. I'm not merely speculating: I
spend most of my time working on the Mapbox geocoder these days. If, when a
user reports a missing small town boundary for a reverse geocode, I could
fix the problem by adding the boundary to OSM, I would be delighted. As
things stand, I need to correct these errors by pursuing a much more
complicated process with a proprietary data vendor.

Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150922/abbb3d46/attachment-0001.html>