[talk-au] remapping ways from bing but copying the original tags
inas66+osm at gmail.com
Sun Nov 13 09:26:30 GMT 2011
Firstly,I think we are overwhelmingly agreed that OSM doesn't copy other
maps or data. Just because someone has a individual view that some data
isn't covered by copyright doesn't make it so. It is frustrating when this
happens, and as you know this isn't the first time that data has been
entered into OSM just on the bush-lawyer opinion of an importer/contributor.
We have some procedures to deal with this. Discussion, revert the
changesets, and report it. Invite the editor to this discussion.
On the subject of FOSM, the OSM data that hasn't be relicenced is going to
be remapped. This means deleting some perfectly good data, and remapping
it by survey or the available imagery. FOSM hopefully should develop
procedures to cope with this, hopefully with the outcome of preserving the
best maps it can.
I don't think it is really practical that people not remap data which
people have not relicenced under the new CTs. Although I'm personally not
going out of my way to remap unCT data (yet), if I have surveyed an area
and have additional information to add to the map, I'm not going to make
changes to unCT data and risk my changes being wasted, I'll remap instead.
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.
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au