[talk-au] Refreshing NSW place names from the GNB database.

[Andrew Davidson]

After a bit of digital archaeology I've found this thread:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-July/000398.html

Which seems to be the point at which people thought they'd got 
permission (but there are doubters in the thread).

The bit I can't figure is why they'd agreed to tagging with the 
copyright notice but then the import seems to have gone ahead without 
this, see:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/507147

for example.

Then there is a review in 2010:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004136.html

which seems to have resulted in someone still believing that we had 
permission.



On 7/4/16 11:55, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> As far as I can tell, this data isn't available under a free and open
> license, so unless there is documentation somewhere to suggest
> otherwise, it shouldn't have been imported to begin with and certainly
> shouldn't be added again.
>
> On 7 April 2016 at 11:30, Andrew Davidson <u887 at internode.on.net
> <mailto:u887 at internode.on.net>> wrote:
>
>     There was an import of NSW places from the GNB database done back in
>     2008 with a helpful wiki page ;-)
>
>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NSW_Geographic_Names_Import
>
>     I'm proposing to review these to see what's changed in the last 8
>     years but I've run into a number of problems:
>
>     1. It would seem that the original import was not complete
>     2. The nswgnb tags have not survived well
>     3. The GNB has "helpfully" created entries for the address
>     localities but these seem to have taken on the reference numbers for
>     the original town/village/city. They've created new entries for the
>     original entity but this means that the town/village/city now has a
>     different reference number.
>     4. Sometimes the locality entry has the same location but at other
>     times it can be separated by up to 5km.
>
>     Initially I thought that the multiple GNB references could be
>     entered with multiple values like this:
>
>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3118349777
>
>     but this doesn't naturally tell you how the place:nswgnb and
>     ref:nswgnb line up and it doesn't lend itself to adding the
>     alt_names that are in the database. As an alternative I'd like to
>     use this scheme*:
>
>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113135446
>
>     which requires swapping the namespace prefix around to make nswgnb
>     the namespace. I think this makes it clearer how the GNB categories
>     line up and can be extended for more names (There is at least one
>     place in NSW with three different variant names).
>
>     I'm also proposing to put the LOCALITY or SUBURB entry at the same
>     place as the corresponding TOWN/VILLAGE/CITY etc entry (provided
>     that it still falls inside the admin_level 10 boundary).
>
>     Any views on these ideas? I think the most important thing is will
>     this be useful for the next person who looks at this in 5 to 10
>     years from now?
>
>
>     *Unusually the admin_level 10 boundary for this area is called Lake
>     Tabourie and has a separate GNB entry:
>
>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4103653600
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-au mailing list
>     Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>