[OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Thomas Davie]

If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I don't), a lawyer has agreed that it's okay to keep node positions and ways where a user would reasonably have created the same way from an ODbL compatible data source.  So for example, in this case, the user could reasonably create the exact same way by tracing bing, and hence is fine in terms of copyright breach.  The less destructive way to do this would be to simply mark the way as odbl=clean rather than deleting the original and creating a new one with the same node positions though.

Thanks

Tom Davie

On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

> Apparently this ownership is more complex then 
> at first sight.
> 
> A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
> Maarten only took a look at the tags.
> 
> cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
> created  the nodes (Version 1) that defines this 
> particular way with GPS acquired data,
> later assisted by satellite data, even before 
> Bing became available.
> 
> way data:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
> 
> Nodes data (just one)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history
> 
> The whole area is full of this type of copyright breaches,
> and I did not investigate anywhere else.
> 
> Next topic of action: 
> Analyzing the bicycle routes that I personally biked
> (GPS available, though not uploaded) 
> through large parts of the south west in Holland, will
> show if the new author actually drove the route,
> copied the data that I created, 
> or just took the GPX files from the fietsersbond.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Gert
> 
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:mdeen at xs4all.nl] 
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
> Aan: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
> 
> On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
>>>> "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply 
>>>> modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to 
>>>> highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you 
>>>> have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason not
> 
>>>> to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.
>>> 
>>> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 2012-01-09:
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history>
>>> 
>>> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history>
>>> 
>>> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny. 
>>> Offending
>>> changeset seems to be
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339>
>> 
>> I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>> 
>> AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change 
>> unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole 
>> area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.
> 
> The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
> march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
> from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under ODbL.
> That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl): 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html
> 
> This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions (deleting
> and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
> can be called strange at any point in time.
> You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
> recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that view
> very much.
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk