[OSM-talk-be] YES, we can trace the PICC

Sat May 27 14:44:09 UTC 2017

Hi,

This is the last e-mail I'll write about this because it's very clear
that the SPW allows OSM to trace the PICC.

On 2017-05-11 08:53, joost schouppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry, this became a rather long mail. But it is important, and I
> tried to be as clear as possible.
>
> Meanwhile I spoke with Lionel on our Riot channel [1] and with Simon
> Poole through legal-questions at osmfoundation.org.
>
> If I understood, André says this:
>
> - the license for all the geoportail WMS products is this [2]
Please look at what that file says and at the SPW site.  That text
contains the default conditions, but it says that other "Conditions"
(files) may exist in the "Accès" tab such as for Cartoweb.be
<http://geoportail.wallonie.be/catalogue/fa70cc95-83d9-476b-a88e-f38c4f6600da.html#tabs-1>.
> - that license does not allow copying
"copying" has nothing to do with services (WMS) but with downloading
vector data. That is *another* license as I explained.
> - the geoportail team is the intermediary between the data source and
> the citizen, and can represent the data source
> - the geoportail team says (in a copy pasted mail) that yes, tracing
> the PICC WMS is considered consulting and that is allowed
More exactly, the geoportail states in that PDF document you call [2]
that "le SPW permet l’accès et l’utilisation gratuits des services par
tout utilisateur", meaning that anybody can do anything with the WMS
service. It means that it is "public domain".
The SPW further explained in a semi-private official e-mail for those
who do not understand the OSM implications of that sentence, that OSM is
allowed to "se connecter sur le serveur du SPW et calquer le PICC afin
de faire des fonds de plan (=vectoriser), réutiliser à sa guise les
fonds de plan (commercialement ou non)", that is, tracing the WMS
service and put that trace and everything found in PICC to the OSM database.
That is not the license (terms of use) of PICC but an equivalent
explanation of the above first sentence in OSM context.
> So things you could help answer:
> - are we sure Geoportail has the authority to clarify this license? (I
> don't know enough about Walloon gov structure; Lionel is quite sure
> they do; more opinions would be nice)
If you see maps on a site, if you see the conditions of use written next
to them, and if they say
> Toute question relative aux conditions d’accès et d’utilisation des
> services est envoyée à :
> SPW – Département de la Géomatique - Direction de l’Intégration des
> géodonnées
> Chaussée de Charleroi, 83 bis, 5000 Namur OU
> helpdesk.carto at spw.wallonie.be
is there any doubt that they are authoritative?
> - is the wording used in the e-mail enough?
> - is an e-mail enough or do we need something a bit more formal?
Once again, the e-mail is not the license.
It's trying to make understand that simple sentence of the license which
is [2].
> - is this answer also valid for other WMS
Supposing that "this answer" means "the e-mail", it was written for the
PICC.
But it is of course true for the services for which that file you call
[2] is the license but not if they have contradictory conditions.
> The answer from OSMF is quite clear:
I provided URLs for the SPW and their texts.
Could you please do the same with OSMF? (OSMF?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Media_Framework>)
I couldn't find anything leading to what you say.
> - if the license does not explicitly allow tracing, then you need a
> written permission
> - a written document (signed and scanned PDF) is always best, but
> e-mails can be acceptable
Once again, the e-mail is not the license.
Requesting a PDF is quite strange because PDF is a format used to send
to a printer and we certainly don't want to print licenses. PDF does not
contain data defining the format (e.g. paragraphs and tables) and,
beside printing it, it's not possible to convert it or copy&paste it
reliably; that implies guesses and making errors.
HTML is quite OK and better and, while PDF cannot be converted to HTML
(reliably) those who can't live without PDF can convert HTML to PDF
reliably. But it's a dead end.

*We do have* an SPW PDF file, that you call [2] and that I call
"Conditions d’accès et d’utilisation des services web géographiques de
visualisation du Service public de Wallonie
<http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/LicServicesSPW.pdf>".

> - the text needs to contain something like the first paragraph of this
> text [3]. This contains legalese explaining what tracing for OSM
> implies. Generally, language like this will trigger the person
> answering the request to check higher up in the organisation, so we
> can be more sure someone with actual power in the organisation signs
> the document.
>
> I think this answer implies that:
> a) we shouldn't call other's vigilantes just because they feel what we
> currently have is not enough, as what we have clearlu is not what the
> OSMF would like is to have
> b)  we do kind of have something, so there probably is no reason to
> panic if a mapper says they've been using any of the geoportail WMS
> c) we really should get a better document. This document should not
> only contain some decent legalese, but also explicitly ask the
> permission for use of all the WMS that are under the standard license
> [2] and have no extra license info.
>
> Actions for right now:
> - add a little section to the PICC wiki pages explaining the
> difference between SPW/PICC/WMS; add a section explaining that whether
> or not PICC is OK for use is up to debate, not a BOLD YES. The wiki
> should reflect community opinion, not "the truth".
> - prepare a text and send it out again to geoportail. I've prepared a
> little framapad [4] for that
And maybe thank the SPW for what they've done and André and Julien for
what they've clarified.

Vigilantes should not say "no" when the answer is "yes" and even seem to
love to say "no" without investigation.

[4] is real gibberish for saying that "le SPW permet l’accès et
l’utilisation gratuits des services par tout utilisateur".
Do you really intend to have the SPW rewrite their terms that way for
each of their 205 services multiplied by the number of users?
> Doing all this stuff may look like boring work, but remember that for
> everyone shouting "we shouldn't use this" or "we really can use this",
> there are ten standing by confused. So let's stop the shouting and get
> to work.
Yes. There's no confusion. With JOSM and with the PICC's 25 cm
precision, the contributors can confidently get to work correcting the
2-5m or more imprecision and errors that have been made during 6 years.
> (to be honest: I may need to include myself in the group of shouters,
> as I was quite worried when André first started talking about that
> Michelin project)
The MicheIin map is so coarse that it would be absolutely stupid to
trace it.
What I said amounts to comparing the Michelin map to OSM, especially
drawing OSM with Michelin's colors, which can in practice help drawing
the attention on this street
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301189193> that, being part of N3
should be primary and not secondary.  I was suspected to have done
things like that and threatened to be excluded from OSM together with
removing the Walloon borders and quite a Jazz.
Beware! If you sit in a coach and notice it follows an interesting
route, go and ask the driver if he uses Michelin and if the answer is
yes, DO NOT check that route on OSM !!!
You should notice that Michelin themselves have mapped their own data to
OSM in Clermont-Ferrand.

Cheers
Cordialement,

André.

> 1: https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org
> 2: http://geoportail.wallonie.be/files/documents/ConditionsSPW/LicServicesSPW.pdf
> 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqLXg1TUlxalAtVE0/view
> 4: https://annuel2.framapad.org/p/geoportail-spw
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20170527/c40acd45/attachment.htm>