[OSM-talk] Osmarender 5

[Tom Hughes]

In message <8fcd02310709010521o61939b00xfac3daec7aebd204 at mail.gmail.com>
          80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/1/07, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> >
> > In message <8fcd02310709010441y5356e997o18be09709484e22c at mail.gmail.com>
> >           80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/1/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why do many of the street names in Oakham have "(C) persons name"
> > > > against them? This rather spoils the map IMO.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's an experiment, I'd like to hear people's opinions.
> >
> > As discussed on IRC the other night after it first appeared, the
> > consensus seemed be that it was bogus.
> >
> > To start with you can't possibly know if that is the correct copyright
> > attribution, assuming that you've just taken the last person to edit
> > it and ignore all previous editors who may well have far more work.
> >
> > It might even have been created by the Tiger upload or by somebody
> > who has declared their work PD and therefore not be copyright at all.
> >
> > When you were first playing with it there was no copyright symbol was
> > there? I think adding it was a big mistake as it makes an assertion
> > that will frequently be wrong.
> 
> If the API were to actually provide the correct attribution then it would be
> right.  Don't shoot the messenger ;)

There's a difference between attribution and copyright anyway. As far
as I know nobody has suggested returning copyright information.

Returning the full attribution history for an individual object is
quite expensive and I don't think anybody has suggested that either.

Some people have suggested returning attribution information for an
area though. That is not the same as copyright though.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/