[OSM-talk] Yahoo Aerial Imagery vs. OSM Spirit

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Thu Mar 29 16:56:42 BST 2007

Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> I think this is all the more reason to focus on using NASA imagery which 
> has no such restrictions.

Great, what are you going to work on? Where do they have recent high res 
data for?

> - Josh
> On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:43 AM, SteveC wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> But gifts can also do damage. On the one hand, we risk becoming  
>>> influenced (or should I even sy corrupted) in or thinking by the very  
>>> "intellectual property/licensing/corporate attitude" that was one  
>>> reason to start OSM. Call it political decision-making or whatever -  
>>> the fact that their data is there and they have nothing against our  
>>> tracing OSM data from the satellite/aerial imagery, but they want to  
>>> tell us exactly that one way of doing it is ok and other way is not.
>> What makes you think yahoo care about any of this? Their hands are tied 
>> by the agreement(s) made with their imagery providers. It's not like 
>> Yahoo own this stuff and can do what they like.
>>> Look at it like this: There's litte Fred in his computerized hut. One  
>>> evening, existing OSM data plus Yahoo imagery goes in; the next  
>>> morning, a lot of OSM data comes out. That's the basics. Nothing else  
>>> comes out, no traces remain. Now why in the world do Yahoo want to  
>>> tell Fred that he may do his work using the applet, but he may not do  
>>> it using other means?
>> Because they have contracts to honour?
>>> And we're starting to jump through loops. We're starting to speculate  
>>> what Yahoo's reasons might be and how we might "work with them" - how  
>>> we might tune our technical processes so that, while technically less  
>>> than optimal (or more complex than necessary), they will fit  
>>> soneone's license model.
>> No, I really don't think "we" are doing these things, like working with 
>> them. There's a bunch of pontificating about the moral wrongs and dark 
>> purposes, but only one guy, mikel, actually going to all the effort.
>> Really, your time is much better spent coding, suggesting a better way, 
>> getting better imagery...
>>> We're even starting to believe that the JOSM plugin might have  
>>> violated their terms of use by storing a temporary file, while at the  
>>> same time taking it for granted that browsers may make any number of  
>>> temporary files accessible for eternity just because that is "normal".
>> It's not a matter of belief, it's a fact that Yahoo! feel that it goes 
>> too far. So what? So we find a way to make it work. I couldn't give a 
>> monkeys about whether their reasoning is technically sound. It's just 
>> not their fault, they're protecting their investment and contractual 
>> obligations as would any sane person. I'm sure that if they owned the 
>> images outright they'd happily let us have them. As it turns out they 
>> don't.
>> They have an agreement on using this stuff through their API in 
>> principle and spirit. We ran up against that, we can still use things 
>> like potlatch. If we can't make it happen in JOSM then c'est la vie. So 
>> make potlatch do what you want, or go and spend the time to build a 
>> 'better' relationship with someone else. We really don't need to throw 
>> the baby out with the bathwater.
>>> And there's another danger with the gift of Yahoo imagery as well: I  
>>> have heard people in my area say "don't bother mapping that, I'm sure  
>>> we will soon have better Yahoo imagery for our region and then wee'll  
>>> trace it from there". So the potential later availability of  
>>> satellite images is actually keeping people from making an effort to  
>>> get the data now. (Not Yahoo's fault, of course. But if we weren't  
>> What people? I'm not held back. Have you met any of these people? I've 
>> met tons of people who are held back due to a slow server, technical 
>> knowledge or what have you. Nobody's said to me they can't be bothered 
>> to map in case Yahoo decide to release aerial data... they'd have to go 
>> out _anyway_ to get the street names.
>>> involved with them, then the chances of having satellite images for  
>>> the region soon would be much more remote, motivating some people to  
>>> tackle it themselves instead of waiting for better days.)
>>> For a third time: Satellite images are valuable and I would like to  
>>> have them. But even though Lars has used drastic words when he spoke  
>>> of queues on Soviet streets... I, too, find it tempting to walk away  
>>> in this case.
>> Walk away from something you didn't set up, because it can't be done 
>> with your favourite editor as it stands? Please.
>> have fun,
>> SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> - Blasting forth in three part harmony!

have fun,

SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/

More information about the talk mailing list