[Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

Tue Jun 7 23:30:46 BST 2011

I think I'm reasonably happy at the moment.  I have indicated I have some
concerns about some of my sources meeting the ODBL license requirements and
I have some concerns about importing data under the new CT.  I have taken
reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the OSM database.

It sounds as if Gordon Dewis has taken it upon himself to have the data
brought back into OSM and thus as far as I am concerned accepts the
responsibility that all my data meets the OSM current and future license
requirements.  I think I'm absolved of any responsibility for the quality of
the sources.

Any future data I add to the project will meet the new CT, ie not be
imported and only from direct observation.

> There has to some kind of reasonable solution here.

Not necessarily things, are not done by consensus in OSM there are too many
different view points.

Cheerio John

On 7 June 2011 17:34, Samuel Longiaru <longiaru at shaw.ca> wrote:

>
> Hate to jump in where it's not wanted but...
>
> Just wondering if there is some kind of middle ground solution here.  John
> clearly does not feel comfortable with having his imports in the database
> and so has removed them.  Not something we would like to see happen too
> often, but it has happened.
>
> Is it possible to restore his original imports and the subsequent edits by
> others, but do so using another account name so that John's is not
> associated with the data?  I would think that this should meet John's desire
> to have his name removed from the data, and from our perspective, could
> constitute a "new" import.  In this case, I would think that John could take
> some comfort in knowing that he did what he felt he needed to do... namely
> remove the data that he did not feel comfortable with anymore... for
> whatever reason.  We could then restore the data without having to do
> through the painstaking process of reimporting from a CanVec source and
> re-edit.  It would simply be an import under another account.
>
> Changing the licensing mid-stream is bound to cause some issues.... many of
> which will be totally unforeseen.  There has to some kind of reasonable
> solution here.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sam
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From*: john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com<john%20whelan%20%3cjwhelan0112 at gmail.com%3e>
> >
> *To*: Richard Weait <richard at weait.com<Richard%20Weait%20%3crichard at weait.com%3e>
> >
> *Cc*: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org<Talk-CA%20OpenStreetMap%20%3ctalk-ca at openstreetmap.org%3e>
> >
> *Subject*: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
> *Date*: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400
>
> To recap:
>
> The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for
> the database.  This position can be undermined if any included data has not
> been directly created by a mapper in the field.
>
> In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I don't
> have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL.  At the time it was done my
> expectation was that this information would become available under CC-by-SA
> in the short term this has not happened.
>
> I have included information from a source that had other information on
> it.  Not a major crime but it is technically a breach of copyright.
>
> The two paragraphs above basically undermine any legal case that OSM would
> have concerning Ottawa data unless the data is removed when brought to your
> attention which is why I haven't specifically mentioned them before.  Note
> it has now been brought to your attention and the responsibility for the
> integrity of the database is now yours if you choose not to accept the
> deletions.  There are probably a few other instances in there somewhere.
>
> I have requested that my CT status be reverted.  I have tried to request
> that my change sets / data be removed and I have manually deleted the
> suspect data which I think is all I can reasonably do.  If you revert the
> deleting edits then you undermine the legal case for protecting the OSM
> database.
>
> If my CT status was reverted then the older data would be deleted in time
> by OSM.  I saw a post to that effect recently from Frederick in a reply to
> some one who mentioned they couldn't accept the new CT.  That and Fredrick's
> comment that people were deleting data that wasn't added under the new CT
> triggered the decision to remove the data I had added to the project.
> Basically the sooner its done the less impact it will have.  Leave it around
> and others will edit it so their edits get lost as well.
>
> There has been some discussion that I think you are aware of within OSM
> about imports.  Basically the new CT is not import friendly.  As a
> contributor you are responsible for the data you add to the project.  This
> includes ensuring that only data that meets the licensing can be included.
> I don't think anyone can say what the license in future will be changed to
> or even if it will be changed.  Essentially this means I cannot give an
> undertaking to CANVEC that OSM license will be compatible and acceptable in
> the future when I don't know what that license will be.
>
> OSM I think is changing to be a map that is done by people on the ground
> with GPS devices.  That's fine, I have surveyed and added a number of
> footpaths and I'm more than happy to add them to the  project.
>
> I think if you look at Google you'll see imported bus stops.  I don't think
> OSM will ever be reliable enough for people to use it for bus stops unless
> they are imported.  In North America today I think regretfully Google and
> Bing have essentially won when we look at what people use.
>
> OSM is a very niche product.  It happens to be one I personally like very
> much.  The Ottawa map I have hosted in Google documents using Maperitive is
> still the only one I know of where you can find WLAN locations that are
> wheelchair accessible and the data is searchable.
>
> To protect the OSM database I think you have to remove my edits.  I'll add
> the footpaths etc that have been manually surveyed back in later.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
>
>
> On 7 June 2011 13:24, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed.
>
>
>  Earlier you said that you were happy to have your surveyed data
> included in OSM under CT/ODbL, but you wanted Canvec data you uploaded
> removed.
>
> Now you say, "I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed. "
>
> Which is it?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing listTalk-ca at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20110607/40b6239b/attachment.html>