pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 12 14:32:24 UTC 2019
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 14:58, Ulrich Lamm <ulamm.brem at t-online.de> wrote:
> Some important OSM-menbers prefer ignorant mapping, producing a
> fragmentary presentation og waterways.
It's not about "ignorant" or "knowledgeable" mapping. It never has been.
Does the copyright of the material you use give you permission to use it in
that way? Using
Google Translate on https://wbv-trebel.wbv-mv.de/?page_id=97 I found my way
https://wbv-trebel.wbv-mv.de/?page_id=14 which says this:
The content and works on these pages created by the site operators are
subject to German copyright law. The duplication, processing, distribution
and any kind of exploitation outside the limits of copyright require the
written consent of the respective author or creator. Downloads and copies
of this site are for private, non-commercial use only. As far as the
contents on this side were not created by the operator, the copyrights of
third parties are considered. In particular contents of third parties are
marked as such. Should you still be aware of a copyright infringement, we
ask for a note. Upon notification of violations, we will remove such
If you use the information there to add things to OSM then you are
breaching the requirement that
you use that information for PRIVATE use ONLY. And because OSM data is
commercial offerings such as Mapbox, you are breaching the requirement that
you use that
copied information for NON-COMMERCIAL use ONLY.
This is not about a preference for "ignorant" mapping. It never has been.
It is about
breaking the law. It isn't just that a court would compel OSM to remove
your infringing data,
the court might compel OSM to pay damages.
I don't know if you are incapable of understanding that this is about
COPYRIGHT or you
merely pretend to be ignorant of it. Until you show you are capable of
the issue of copyright and of complying with OSM's requirements to respect
of others then people will keep reverting your changes and temporarily
Your "knowledgeable" mapping is a liability to OSM, not an asset.
Actually, you seem to be interpreting objections to your use of copyright
source A as an
objection about source A, not about your use of copyright material in
general. So you come
here to moan, and switch to copyright source B. People then object to you
source B, which your take as an objection about source B, not about your
use of copyright
material in general. We're down to copyright source E or F now (that I
know of) and you
still haven't mastered the generalization that it is about your use of
not about which source you're using. To be honest, if I had the power
(it's probably a
good thing I don't) I'd have put a lifetime ban on you months ago because
incapable of understanding what you are doing wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging