[Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Decline in accuracy of capture date metadata in Bing imagery

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Wed Jul 26 23:32:13 UTC 2017


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm really glad that Bryan brought this up and that you responded asking for
> less technical instructions. I think that finding local imagery sources like
> this is a really great use of people's time and is something that can be
> made really approachable for non-technical folks. We're working on exactly
> this for OpenAddresses right now – currently we ask that people file GitHub
> pull requests to add data sources and want to make it so that anyone with
> knowledge of an address source can easily submit data.

Another, less techincal (or, I should say, less software-y) concern
that I have is that presenting an orthophoto layer in iD or JOSM is
quite different from doing an import; rather than pouring data into
our own database and stamping 'ODBL' on it, it's making the
photography available for people to trace over, use to tidy GPS
tracks, use to verify the existence of features, and so on - and it's
just this sort of difference that the lawyers really *care* about. For
this reason, none of the sample clearance requests that I've found
(for example, on the Wiki) really fit this use of data.

I'm sure that some sort of clearance was obtained to use Bing and
DigitalGlobe imagery in this fashion, and probably for other states'
orthophotos as well. (I know that the Federal ones are 'born in the
public domain' as US Government Works.) There has to be some sort of
contact on our legal team who can address concerns around a request to
use orthophotos, and there has to be some history about how the
initial requests were phrased and what concerns other data providers
had. Knowing some of that context would really help in drafting the
initial letter to NYSGIS.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list