[OSM-talk] Draft Geocoding Guideline

[Michael Steffen]

Hi all -

A few thoughts on the comments. Speaking entirely on my own behalf here, I
have not gotten feedback on this yet from the rest of the LWG.

[from Christoph]

But if you aggregate such results they can become subject to the ODbL. . .
> The difference is that indirect results are significantly *less
> substantial* than direct results because by interpolating you lose a lot of
> substance.  Spelling this out makes sense to me but the formulation cited
> above seems to be misleading and confusing.


[from Martin]

Rather than "contain no osm data" this could be seen as "contain only
> transformations of osm data, no raw osm data".


I think I see the confusion here now. What if we tweaked this language to
something like the following?

*CURRENT DRAFT: Individual Geocoding Results are insubstantial database
extracts if they are based on a Direct Hit. Individual Geocoding Results
that are based on an Indirect Hit contain no OSM data and so are free of
any obligations under the ODbL.*

*PROPOSED REVISION: Individual Geocoding Results are insubstantial database
extracts: Individual Geocoding Results that are based on a Direct Hit
contain an insubstantial amount of raw OSM data; Individual Geocoding
Results that are based on an Indirect Hit contain no raw OSM data at all
and only transformations of or inferences from OSM data.*

[from Martin]

E.g. my algorithm could take a list of all streets, query all house numbers
> from 1 to x (until it doesn't find any more hits for a sequence of
> numbers), but not the numbers 3 and 4 . . .


The hypothetical sounds like a systematic attempt to extract "substantially
all" addresses. It also does sound to me like the intent would likely be to
create a general purpose geodatabase from OSM (for example use of the
results again as a geocoder). So share-alike would apply: “A collection of
Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data
if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the
original aggregation was accomplished.”

Without attributing to osm


The attribution piece of this is indeed somewhat tricky. We wrote a fairly
detailed explanation of our reasoning in the FAQ section of the wiki. To be
clear: anyone running a geocoder based on OSM would need to attribute OSM.

Yes, individual geocoding results are not substantial, but geocoding is
> typically executed many times (i.e. systematically), and it is the sum of
> the geocoding results that makes the extract substantial.


Yes agreed - a collection of Geocoding Results can have enough data to be a
Substantial Extract of an OSM Database and a Derivative Database. This
applies to both Direct and Indirect Hits.

Hopefully the proposed new wording above would help clarify this.

Thanks again for the feedback.

-Michael


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170731/9e4803e7/attachment.html>