[Local-chapters] Editable Servers

[Henk Hoff]

Guys,

The issue here is the following:

It's in the best interest of the project that we have one dataset that can
be officially called the OpenStreetMap dataset. Defragmentation is going to
hurt in the long run. We will get into all kinds of problems, link
synchronization.

Let's say the idontcarewhereistan chapter is running it's own (seperate)
instance of (a part) of the database. The local community is editing this
map and the edits will be synchronized with the main database periodically.
In the meantime the main database is also open for edits. Someone who has
been on holiday in idontcarewhereistan has edited the main database. We know
have several problems:
- Which version is the correct OSM version?
- How are we going to handle the migration issues?
- ....

If a chapters needs a database to process datasets in order to insert them
correctly in the OSM database, I see no problem there.

If there are currently technical limitations, let's hear them, so we can try
to solve them. Could be valuable input for API 0.7

BTW: we're not talking about running an own database to provide all kinds of
services (like tile-servers, making shape-files, etc, etc). That's totally
fine. It's about have a single source of truth of what the OSM map is.

Cheers,
Henk


2010/3/21 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>

> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Jaak Laineste <jaak at nutiteq.com> wrote:
>
>> > Good point. It's the same with ODbL section 4.7a and section 3 of the
>> new
>> > contributor terms. OSMF cannot put any restrictions on how anyone uses
>> the
>> > data under the terms of the license.
>>
>>  Right. I actually cannot see how you can set any extra restrictions to
>> local chapters on things what anyone else can do anyway. If I as LC am not
>> allowed do something, then I can always do it as a private person, or a
>> company. So if there is ban on editable servers, then the rule should be
>> in
>> general terms of use, or not there at all.
>>
>>
> Of course, anyone is allowed to clone the database and make it editable in
> respect of the license. But he cannot say it's the OpenStreetMap database. I
> think it is a good point to say somehwere that local chapters can use the
> name "OpenStreetMap" but cannot claim that "they are" an OpenStreetMap
> dataset when it is a forked project. Probably the wording can be improved.
>
> Pieren
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Local-chapters mailing list
> Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20100321/e1d967ac/attachment.html>