[OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
morb.gis at beagle.com.au
Mon Jul 11 14:28:51 BST 2011
Hi Frederik, thanks for discussing.
On 11/07/2011 10:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 07/11/11 14:46, Brendan Morley wrote:
>> * If ABS2006 is a mistake licensing-wise, then it would be a mistake to
>> import any Australian Government geodata into OSM these days.
> I belive importing *any* data into OSM is a mistake most of the time.
> It doesn't help you at all in building a community. If the foundation
> of your project are imports then you'll utimately have a few bigwigs
> writing the scripts and deciding how things are done. That's a
> different kind of project - a "collection of open government data"
> maybe. I believe ESRI are doing something like that. But you'll not
> find a community caring for your imported gov't data.
Well as you may know I'm taking a different tack again to either of the
above - essentially I want the highest quality open map. We have an
opportunity (in Australia at least) to let the government inside the
tent, and allow government and the community as equals in information
If OSM is about building a community, over building the highest quality
open map, then yes I agree we have very different visions.
By the way, ESRI has its own peculiarities: refer
http://commonmap.org/faq#10n127 and http://commonmap.org/faq#188n194
> There's really no reason for official land parcel data in OSM.
> Importing official land parcel data will certainly deteriorate, and
> not improve, the quality of OSM.
With respect I'm completely gobsmacked by this attitude. Accurate
boundaries are a WIN, surely? The only trick is to preserve the foreign
key, so that one can detect changes in the source dataset and
synchronise changes over time.
I take it personally to be honest. Often we get Public Notices in our
local newspapers that refer only to Lot on Plan information. Up until
now it's been very difficult to track down where in space those L/P's
refer to. The whole, "are they going to build a freeway next to by
house" kind of question.
> (Mind you, the new license doesn't seem to keep the Brits from drawing
> on attribution-only sources released by *their* government but maybe
> the law is stricter down under?)
Indeed, I don't know why the ABS2006 data is an issue. However, I would
guesstimate the Australian Government would be highly unlikely to take
action, after all, AusGov wants to use the most permissive attribution
licence available. However, if an OSM editor started shifting the
boundaries around and still claimed it to be straight ABS data - that
would be a moral rights issue.
More information about the talk