[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 33 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

Fri Feb 8 19:37:19 UTC 2019

Am 08.02.2019 um 13:00 schrieb tagging-request at openstreetmap.org:

> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
> 	tagging at openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	tagging-request at openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	tagging-owner at openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 29, Co-ordinate sets vs.
>      background informations (Martin Koppenhoefer)
>   2. Re: Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 31 Co-ordinate sets vs.
>      background informations (Warin)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:00:37 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 29, Co-ordinate
> 	sets vs. background informations
> Message-ID: <4467B49B-84BD-49B6-8FAF-6A620EA9E014 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 8. Feb 2019, at 09:55, Ulrich Lamm <ulamm.brem at t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Mighty people in OSM, at least one in Germany, punish mappers, if they use database contents available under Creative Commons license, though source tags fit Creative Commons conditions, of course.
> 
> 
> compatibility of several cc licenses has been analyzed and the outcome is documented, you can find a quick overview and pointers here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
If OSM sticks to these rules, it isolates itself from kinds of input that are necessary to male a reliable product.

Official databases are more open in that aspect than OSM. Any modern official database has an entrance that invites you to announce mistakes. 
If you tell them that there is a bias between their contents and data you have found anywhere, thy check the bias within a few days. Though it may last weeks or months, until a correction is displayed.
> 
> 
> Cheers, Martin 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190208/bbd2eefa/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 21:22:53 +1100
> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 31 Co-ordinate
> 	sets vs. background informations
> Message-ID: <a5cc6985-cf13-0ae4-2ac1-9ee01d146685 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
> 
> On 08/02/19 20:37, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
>> 
>> Am 08.02.2019 um 00:44 schrieb tagging-request at openstreetmap.org 
>> <mailto:tagging-request at openstreetmap.org>:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 10:01:28 +1100
>>> From: Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>>
>>> To:tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] A general problem: Co-ordinate sets vs.
>>> background informations
>>> Message-ID: <0f90faea-b79f-668c-c887-035114856e55 at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:0f90faea-b79f-668c-c887-035114856e55 at gmail.com>>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>> 
>>> I don't know what your trying to say here?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This looks to me like either ;
>>> 
>>> A) 'imported data cannot be changed'!
>>> The problem with that is the imported data may be wrong, inaccurate 
>>> of simply old.
>> It is necessary that imported geometries can be changed.
>> It is necessary that also other data can be actualized.
>>> 
>>> B) 'imported data cannot be used'
>>> The problem here is that OSM looses a valuable and large data source.
>>> Yes it can be 'wrong', 'old' and/or 'inaccurate' but it does give a 
>>> starting point for improvements.
>> But for references on definitions, names, and scientific mesurements 
>> of geographic objects,
>> it must be allowed to note "this value is from this source", also if 
>> the source is not ODbL
>> And the provider (e. g. an official environment database) has the 
>> natural right to be mentioned and to be cited correctly..
>> Therefore OSM has to accept Creative Commons conditions for such data.
> 
> No, OSM does not have to accept that.
> I think that is what this is leading too, ... Creative Commons data 
> cannot be used in OSM. Unless they meet OSM requirements - usually a 
> waiver.
The provider of dates has the natural right to define the terms their usage.
For background informations, it is no hardship to meet Creative Commons conditions.
> 
>> 
>> Courses and outlines of many natural  objects are mapped very roughly OSM.
>> Values derived from such mappings are incorrect, too,
> 
> Certainly some things are rough, that is not a factor of the quality or 
> reliability of the data that OSM has access to, but a time limit of the 
> mapper to make that entry.
> Given more time the mapper could make much better entries in to OSM .. 
> but they do have other things to do, like eat and sleep for instance.
> All maps suffer the same constraints, time and money.
> Experienced map users realise that any map is a representation that can 
> be out of data, distorted or 'rough' in certain places and ways.
> OSM gives a fair chance of being up to date and accurate due to the 
> number of local contributors.
The main problems of reliability are:
• Anybody can make phantastic entries. In places with a lot of traffic, including lots of OSM-mappers, phantastic éntries often are corrected within a shot time. In lonely places they can persist for ever.
• Not all mappers understand and follow principles of scientific work.
• Conditions of leisure work often create incomplete research, and mappers rarley record the difference between "unchecked" and "checked with a negative result".
> 
>> 
>> For some informations, OSM cannot be more correct than offiical databases:
>> Official definitions may be optimal or suboptimal, but they are valid.
> They can be out of date. 
If an official definition conflicts with the actual situation, we cannot prove the bias with "I have been there". We have to relate it to other referenced information.
> The definitions may not match public 
> perceptions of what it means.
How can we prove public perception? We can cite other publications.
And remind the problem of populism: Popular often is the opposite of democratic. Popular often is the belief of people who know very little and have not understood anything.
> And they certainly don't have world wide coverage.
Definitions of the authorities concerned, unless they were deliberate falsifications, are valid world wide.
For differences in the naming by different traditions see Key:name 
> 
>> Means of long timelines of measurements cannot be substituted by 
>> single measurements in single visits.
> 
> Map users usually use the map over short time frames when on site, so 
> the accuracy of a single visit matches that of the map user.
> OSm does not claim to be surveyor accuracy.
Map users have the right to get optimal accuracy.
In the water levels of some lakes the timeline amplitude is higher than the mean elevation above (mean) sea level or than the difference towards a neighbouring lake. 
In such cases the inaccurary of hobby measurements causes confusion. 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Once in OSM it can be changed by anyone. Even fumble fingered me. 
>>> Usually errors are picked up and corrected.
>>> Even deliberate things that are wrong are picked up.
>>> 
>> I had repeated the reasons for ODbL.
>> ODbL necessary for the import of geometries.
>> But if everything in OSM is ODbL,
>> OSM isolates itself form references (available under Creative Commons 
>> conditions, only), which are essential for its reliability.
> 
> OSM reliability rests with us and the sources OSM can use.
> 
> Sources OSM cannot use, should not be used to make entries into OSM. 

OSM is already used like a quallity product.
We have to provide that quality, now, or we have to warn people that they should not use OSM until ten years later.

If / As official databases provide their contents under Creative Commons licenses to enable free use for everybody,
it is a lie to say, OSM cannot use them.

I have tried to show the way to prevent OSM from isolation by its own fault:
We have to distinguish between those contents (geometries), on which we cannot meet Creative Commons conditions,
and those contents (definitions, names, results of scientific investigations) on which we can meet Creative Commons conditions, easliy.

The grotesque situation: 
If the isolationism, you plead for, were executed consequently, 
the OSM leaders would have to forbid the mappers to use Wikipedia, 
though many Wikipedians are OSMappers, too, and many OSMappers are Wikipedians, too.

Best regards
Ulrich Lamm
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190208/8e336560/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 33
> ****************************************