[OSM-talk] Draft Geocoding Guideline

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 20 July 2017, Michael Steffen wrote:
>
>  - There was a suggestion to remove the definitions of Direct Hit and
> Indirect Hit. While we agree that the underlying rule is the same for
> both types of results, we do believe there is a practical difference:
> more Indirect Hits (typically interpolated results) will generally be
> necessary to infer OSM data than Direct Hits. We think spelling this
> out will help future users understand and apply the guideline.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I am still confused about the idea that

> Individual Geocoding Results that are based on an Indirect Hit contain 
no OSM data and so are free of any obligations under the ODbL.

But if you aggregate such results they can become subject to the ODbL 
again.  That does not make sense to me.

In my eyes indirect results would not be subject to the ODbL for the 
same reason as direct results - because they are insubstantial.  The 
difference is that indirect results are significantly *less 
substantial* than direct results because by interpolating you loose a 
lot of substance.  Spelling this out makes sense to me but the 
formulation cited above seems to be misleading and confusing.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/