[Talk-us] US Addressing

[Jim McAndrew]

Brian,

That's probably true.  There is no reference to Sanborn in the metadata,
but there is an attribute "PARCEL_SOURCE" which seems to be set to Sanborn
in most cases.

--
Jim


On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Brian May <bmay at mapwise.com> wrote:

>  If Sanborn was just a contractor hired by the govmt agency to help with
> digitizing, data conversion, etc. there should be no copyright issues with
> them. I didn't see a reference to Sanborn in the parcel metadata.
>
> Brian
>
>
>  On 11/29/2012 2:36 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
>
> The city/county of Denver, CO does have a parcels database (in a bunch of
> formats)
> (http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)
>
>  But it is licensed under a CC BY 3.0 License
> (http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)
>
>  Is this something that should even be added to the spreadsheet?  It
> looks like all their data is from Sanborn, so the older data should be out
> of copyright by now, if it can be found elsewhere.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Steven Johnson <sejohnson8 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> That was exactly my reaction as well. My understanding is that these data
>> are essentially in the public domain. I'll note it in the spreadsheet.
>>
>>
>> -- SEJ
>> -- twitter: @geomantic
>> -- skype: sejohnson8
>>
>> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
>> -- Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>>   On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Brian May <bmay at mapwise.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The
>>>>> data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all rights to the data
>>>>> and
>>>>> allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce maps or analysis
>>>>> but
>>>>> you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data (except for back-up
>>>>> purposes)."
>>>>>
>>>>>  the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't attempt to
>>>> control
>>>> people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the ODbL. i'd say this
>>>> license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)
>>>>
>>>> richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can legally is
>>> another matter. A very quick review of Virginia state law appears to show
>>> they have liberal open records laws.
>>> http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law
>>>
>>> We should probably track these public records problems, e.g. counties
>>> and cities that claim copyright, etc but the state law says otherwise.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing listTalk-us at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20121129/77526678/attachment.html>