[talk-au] remapping ways from bing but copying the original tags
ben.kelley at gmail.com
Sun Nov 13 07:56:47 GMT 2011
I have heard the sentiment that ways where the v1 author does not agree to
the new CTs, the way will be deleted, and so therefore it must be a good
idea to delete these ways and re-create them.
>From a copyright point of view, I agree with your problem with copying the
tags. It has a similar problem to copying street names from Google Maps,
but more so.
I also wonder if it is really true that such ways will be deleted though. I
hadn't heard this suggestion before.
If the person is re-surveying the ways, where it was previously not sourced
from survey data, I guess I can understand it (although depending on the
location, some aerial photos can result in more accurate data than what a
consumer grade GPS can provide).
On 13 November 2011 14:28, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently the user FK270673 has made several edits around Sydney. (e.g.
> changesets 9800812, 9803159, 9804035)
> It appears they have been deleting things already mapped, and re-adding
> them as
> * new objects (with new ids, deleting the old objects),
> * traced from bing,
> * with the tags from the deleted objects copied to the new object
> traced from bing
> One example from the first changeset listed is
> I feel there are problems with this, but the third one is the critical
> one for me. I understand that many in OSM would like to remove all
> data from users who declined the CTs and replace it with their own
> work under which they agree to the CTs, and although this makes it
> harder for others like FOSM to use OSM data, I find it acceptable and
> I don't have a problem with this as anyone who disagrees with this
> practice can map at fosm.
> But the third part makes these kinds of edits bad in by opinion. This
> won't make this area of the map "CT approved", as by copying the
> existing tags onto the new ways without permission you are making a
> work derived from a CC-BY-SA work, hence it must be licensed CC-BY-SA.
> The resulting work cannot be included in a CC0 like or attribution
> only type license as it would be violating license under which the
> original work was provided (CC-BY-SA). So all you have achieved by
> doing this is loosing the original history of the object for no good
> reason, and possibly reduced the spatial quality of the data (I'm
> assuming Bing is worse, and less recent than NearMap).
> I asked the user in question about this, and it seems they take the
> view that we can't copyright this information, so they feel they are
> free to copy and release it under whatever license they wish. If this
> was really true then you can consider the original data (including the
> shape and location information) copyright free, so you may as well
> leave it as is; and if this was the case, OSM wouldn't need a rule of
> "don't copy from other maps", and could copy from other proprietary
> data sources.
> I would also take the opportunity to point out to any remaining local
> mappers of OSM that if these types of edit (i.e. deleting existing
> data and replacing it with worse quality data ) continue, then it will
> make it harder for others to pluck out any of your useful edits for
> use in other mapping projects like fosm. It is fine either way, but it
> would be unpleasant to see good data being lost because it is to hard
> to move across to fosm.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au