[OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

[Simon Poole]

Am 23.09.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Alex Barth:
> ......
>
> The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still
> leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind
> in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with
> third party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data
> particularly for geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete
> enough. The ability to use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with
> (non-license-compatible) third party data is exactly what would would
> make a gradual adoption of OSM possible.
>
> .....

This is obviously off topic as it has little to do with comments and
input on the proposed guideline (and the proposed guideline has nothing
directly to do with geo-coding), however I'm curious: why wouldn't you
want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you tried to geo-code
(successfully and non-successfully), for example as proposed in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Failover_Issue_and_Publishing_Derived_Datasets

Simon

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150923/05ba851f/attachment.sig>