[OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu]

I don't think the analogy is quite right.
The Geocoding Guidelines say:

Geocoding Results can be latitude/longitude pairs (as typical in forward
Geocoding Results), and/or full or partial addresses and/or point of
interest names (as typical in reverse Geocoding Results).
Latitude/longitude pairs may come from a “Direct Hit” -- in which case the
data returned will exactly match the data of a feature in the geo-database
used for geocoding -- or it may be an “Indirect Hit”, in which case the
data is inferred or derived from other features, but does not directly
match any feature in the database. The most common type of indirect hits
are interpolated addresses.

For example: Suppose a Geocoding user queries “120 Main St, Anytown, Big
State, USA” and there is a node in the geo-database for that address. A
Geocoding Result consisting of the lat/lon of that node would be a Direct
Hit. However, suppose instead the database contains nodes for 150 Main St
and 110 Main St, but not 120 Main Street. A Geocoder might return a point
in between in between the two known nodes as an estimate of the requested
location. This point (an interpolated result) would be an Indirect Hit.

In the section you quoted, it says "Geocoding Results are an insubstantial
extract **or** contain no OSM data" (emphasis added). So *sometimes*
there's no OSM data, but that's when the results are interpolated. Other
times, individual Geocoding Results (and in certain circumstances as
described in detail in the guidelines, certain types of collections of
Geocoding Results) are insubstantial.

I don't think tracing from a physical printout is the same as
interpolating. It's more like a really basic trivial transformation.

But like I said, based on the usecase you described, I agree I think all
you need to do attribute, just based on different reasoning.

-Kathleen


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:59 AM Lars-Daniel Weber <Lars-Daniel.Weber at gmx.de>
wrote:
>
> According to community guideline for "Geocoding", I'm not using original
OSM data in my new map at all. Since I've drawn lines from paper drawn on
an Produced Work of OSM data, I don't have any of the original OSM elements
in my final dataset, which are in the OSM dataset.
>
> So, I just need to credit OpenStreetMap as decribed in Section 4.3 of the
ODbL, since it's a Produced Work.
>
>
> > Users of a navigation application send an address search query to a
> > cloud-based Geocoder. The Geocoder has access to two separate map
> > databases, one of which contains solely OSM data. The other database
> > contains non-OSM data. If the address is accurately found in the OSM
> > database, the location is sent back to the navigation application. If
> > the address is not found in the OSM database, then the other database is
> > searched, and that result is returned. (The same example applies when
> > the third party database is searched before the OSM database or when
> > they are searched concurrently.) The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an
> > insubstantial extract or contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger
> > share-alike obligations and can be stored together with the
> > non-OSM-based Geocoding Results with no impact on the non-OSM-based
> > Geocoding results, so long as the aggregated collection of results does
> > not contain the whole or a substantial part of the OSM database. The
> > cloud-based Geocoder is, however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as
> > described in Section 4.3 of the ODbL.
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 07. Oktober 2019 um 20:05 Uhr
> Von: "Kathleen Lu" <kathleen.lu at mapbox.com>
> An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>
> Cc: "Lars-Daniel Weber" <Lars-Daniel.Weber at gmx.de>
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
> > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of
>>
>> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>>
>> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since
they're specific for the current task.
>>
>
> My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one
shapefile doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one
license. If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you
have traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database
Guideline.
>
>>
>> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that
>> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
>> > insubstantial
>> >
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>>
>> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is
non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay,
not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen.
>>
>
> It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say
definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on
whether it's insubstantial, since if your usecase is as a filter to select
POIs, then you can do that whether the borders make up a substantial
extract or not, and you are willing to provide attribution anyway, so you
do not need to conclusively avoid ODbL.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20191014/b79d7371/attachment-0001.html>