[Talk-us-sfbay] Uploading sidewalks in San Jose, California

[Harry Cutts]

Hi Steve and Vivek,

Thanks for the thorough explanation, Steve! That's great.

Regarding the City of Mountain View data, I'm not really interested in
doing a bulk import, since the Mapbox team have done a pretty thorough job
of tracing Bing imagery. I'm interested in using the Mountain View data to
fill in the parts where construction has happened since the Bing imagery
was taken, to help me add the data I collect from on-the-ground surveys
(which is most of my mapping activity at the moment). The Microsoft data
set sounds good, so I'll take a look at that.

I'll try to lend a hand with the sidewalks if I get the time, but I'm
currently prioritizing HOT tasks when doing "armchair" mapping.

Thanks,

Harry Cutts
harrycutts.me.uk

On 21 October 2017 at 18:26, OSM Volunteer stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com
> wrote:

> Vivek and Harry:
>
> I am not an attorney, though I am a citizen of the state of California.
> In California, our state legislature passed into law the California Public
> Records Act (CPRA).  From its 1968 passage until the early 2010s, the law
> allowed anyone to request a public record (certain sensitive records like
> personnel records were specifically excluded) and perhaps for a small fee
> (reproduction costs, 1/4 hour of a clerk's "research time" or "reproduction
> labor costs," the price of a blank CD-ROM...) could obtain a copy of said
> record.  Roughly speaking, CPRA is the state-level equivalent of the
> federal (USA) level "Freedom of Information Act" which requires the US
> federal government to disclose its records/data, unless they are classified
> or specifically prohibited by law to disclose.  Please see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Records_Act.
>
> In 2011, there were two lawsuits by divisions of the state itself
> (counties) which challenged the right of request of geographic data,
> specifically GIS records.  One was from Orange County, challenging the
> Sierra Club, an environmental group, though a somewhat-better-known
> suit/case is County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition,
> 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> County_of_Santa_Clara_v._California_First_Amendment_Coalition.
>
> From that article:
>
> The court rejected each of the county's arguments:
>
>         • The court rejected that the records were exempted from release
> as "protected critical infrastructure information" under the Critical
> Infrastructure Information Act, as the county was only the provider of such
> resources, not the receiver, and hence the CII was irrelevant.
>         • The court rejected the CPRA "catch all" exemption claim,
> concluding that the "public interest in disclosure outweighs the public
> interest in nondisclosure.
>         • The court stated that as "a matter of first impression in
> California" there is "no statutory basis either for copyrighting the GIS
> basemap or for conditioning its release on a licensing agreement" and order
> that the "record thus must be disclosed as provided in the CPRA, without
> any such conditions or limitations" and ruled that it considered the
> general case of "interplay between copyright law and California's public
> records law, with the result that unrestricted disclosure is required."
>
> The upshot for OSM is that all records (GIS records are quite explicitly
> protected as part of the Santa Clara case) produced the the state of
> California or its sub-entities (e.g. counties) are essentially open to
> anybody who asks for them.
>
> As an OSM volunteer who "establishes legal ownership nexus" by requesting
> the records, after you receive them, you may do with them whatever you
> wish.  This includes submission to OSM.  Although, I do hope they get
> "polished up and 'prettied'" before this happens!  All I'm saying here is
> that some minor-to-moderate amount of editing in a good editor like JOSM
> can properly clean up the state-produced data so they meet OSM's
> conventions and criteria for uploading "good data."
>
> Steve All, California
> Frequent requestor, user and consumer of California-produced data
> (especially GIS data, as "the data are mine")
> OSM Volunteer (and so, frequently, this turns into "the data are ours,"
> where "we" is OSM).  Get it?  Got it!
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 2017, at 5:41 PM, Vivek Bansal <3vivekb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Harry,
> >
> > I don't know exactly why.  Minh or Stevea may be able to give you exact
> details.
> >
> > I would also consider comparing the Mountain view data to the microsoft
> data.
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Microsoft_Building_Footprint_Data
> >
> > Depending on how Mt. View created their layer, one may be better or more
> up to date than the other.
> >
> > -Vivek
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 5:25 PM Harry Cutts <eternal.linux at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Vivek,
> >
> > Nice! I've linked to the import's Wiki page from the California/Imports
> page.
> >
> >
> > We are using the San Jose data which has an ODbL compliant license (and
> any government data in California has the same).
> >
> > Could you explain this? I'm interested in using some City of Mountain
> View building footprints myself, but was confused by their site's lack of
> detail on licensing. Do you mean that all city, county, and state open data
> is ODbL compliant by some California law?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Harry Cutts
> > harrycutts.me.uk
> <remainder redacted for brevity>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-sfbay/attachments/20171022/54e40ebb/attachment.html>