[Talk-us] Address Node Import for San Francisco

Serge Wroclawski emacsen at gmail.com
Fri Dec 10 01:31:32 GMT 2010

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Katie Filbert <filbertk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Gregory Arenius <gregory at arenius.com> wrote:
>>> A few comments...
>>> 1) San Francisco explicitly says they do not have building outline data.
>>> :(  So, I suppose we get to add buildings ourselves.  I do see that SF does
>>> have parcels.

If buildings aren't availble, that's too bad, but such is life.

I don't think parcels are generally useful.

>>> 2) I don't consider the addresses as noise.  The data is very helpful for
>>> geocoding.  If the renderer does a sloppy job making noise out of addresses,
>>> the renderings should be improved.

Katie's position is certainly valid, especially as it relates to geocoding.

They render ugly, but I'd rather ugly render and some data than no data.

>>> 3) Having looked at the data catalogue page, I do have concerns about the
>>> terms of use and think it's best to get SF to explicitly agree to allow OSM
>>> to use the data.
>>> http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp

I'd have legal look at this. I'm a little confused by some of the
wording about deravitive works and transfered rights and

If SF is open minded- that's awesome. In an ideal world they'd use an
existing license with well defined boundries, like CC0, but baring
that, I'd say don't mention the license at all, but simply have them
donate the data to OSM itself. Legal can help with this.

As for a demo of the data, yeah, an OSM file would be perfect. Also,
though, I'd keep the previous dataset ID, in case you need to do a
comparison later.

- Serge

More information about the Talk-us mailing list