[OSM-talk] namespaces and copyright

elvin ibbotson elvin.ibbotson at poco.org.uk
Fri Apr 25 13:23:05 BST 2008


I too am relatively new to OSM and occasionally bemused by the arcane  
debates on the talk list.

Those who know about database theory  should be able to decide on the  
merits of namespaces. I can see the value of a structured,  
hierarchical approach provided it is implemented in a way we lesser  
mortals can understand and presented via a usable interface and I  
have to say I'm not sure this is always the case. I have yet to get  
to grips with bridge tagging, never mind relations or worrying about  
namespaces :-)

Chris Hill is worried about copyright issues with climbing routes and  
this is like lots of concerns I have seen expressed such as taking  
street names from actual street signs rather than from copyrighted  
material. If it's the name of the street, it's the name of the  
street, no matter how or where it is communicated. Not only am I not  
an expert on databases but I am equally ignorant of the finer points  
of copyright law. But PLEASE! A street name cannot be copyright and  
printing it on a piece of paper or causing it to appear on a screen  
is hardly the stuff of intellectual property. SteveC rightly debunked  
the whole map copyright issue at the beginning of this month and we  
need to recognise humbug and treat it with the contempt it deserves.

JOSM imports  waypoints with GPX tracks and I would like to see  
Potlatch do the same, but I came across something this week about the  
terrifying risk of accidentally importing copyright stuff  such as  
the location of Garmin's headquarters. What?! If Garmin put this  
information on every device they sell they would probably be  
delighted if it accidentally appeared in Open Street Map. If not, I  
would like to see them sue.

elvin.ibbotson

>
> From: David Ebling <dave_ebling at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: 25 April 2008 08:46:47 BDT
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [OSM-talk] namespaces
>
>
> I don't know if I count as a "new user" (started late
> 2007) but I can't see any benefit from this
> "namespace" business. I'm technically minded, but not
> an expert geek by any means, and not familiar with the
> concept of "namespaces".
>
> On this occasion I find "Ockham's Razor" convincing.
> i.e. K.I.S.S.
>
> If something adds no benefit, (and I've been following
> this bizarre discussion and have yet to be convinced
> of any benefit whatsoever) then why should we add a
> whole load more characters to loads of the tags we add
> to things? It will lead to more typos, more errors,
> more confusion about correct tagging, increase the
> size of the db, and raise the barrier to entry for OSM
> contributors. It's already quite challenging for some
> new members to get the hang of the editors, and
> getting harder with things like relations. We don't
> want OSM data to only make sense to people familiar
> with the concept of "namespaces" do we? Or was that
> the intention?
>
> Lets keep OSM as accessible as possible.
>
> Dave
>
>
> From: Chris Hill <chillly809 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: 25 April 2008 11:28:43 BDT
> To: OSM Talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Climbing routes
>
>
> Leaving the namespace issue aside, how would one collect the  
> information about climbing routes?  The routes I climbed didn't  
> have signs or the like to gather from the site.  All of the  
> climbing guides I have that describe the routes, including their  
> name, grade, number of pitches etc are copyright.  Are there  
> copyright free sources of this information?
>
> Cheers, Chris
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080425/291e2156/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list