[OSM-talk] Draft Geocoding Guideline
Christoph Hormann
osm at imagico.de
Fri Jun 2 08:32:54 UTC 2017
On Friday 02 June 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> We have produced a draft document
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Draft_Geocoding_Guideline that is
> open for comments, either here on the mailing list or on the talk
> page of the document. [...]
A few quick comments on the first read:
I am not sure i agree with
> Individual Geocoding Results that are based on an Indirect Hit
> contain no OSM data and so are free of any obligations under the
> ODbL
because you can easily extend this view to consider any processed
coordinates generated from OSM data (think ST_PointOnSurface() from
polygons - which is ultimately based on coordinate interpolation as
well) to "contain no OSM data".
You are also contradicting yourself later in a way when you say share
alike applies even to indirect hits if they are aggregated - which does
not make much sense if the individual indirect hits "contain no OSM
data and so are free of any obligations under the ODbL".
IMO it would make sense to remove this distinction because the guideline
makes no significant difference between these two cases. And even if
indirect hits contain no OSM data they are clearly derived from OSM
data.
The core of the guideline seems to be the statement what is considered a
substantial extract. What bothers me about this is you base this on
names:
> 1. only feature names and latitude/longitude information are included
> in the Geocoding Results
That would mean if you query something other than names (think: ref
tags, house numbers etc.) everything is substantial. This seems
strange to me, could you elaborate on why this distinction is made?
I think it would not hurt to be more specific about the attribution
requirements. Instead of
> The application developer is, however, required to credit
> OpenStreetMap.
use
"The application is, however, required to show credits for OpenStreetMap
to the user as described in Section 4.3 of the ODbL."
because the current formulation could easily be read as a BSD license
like credit requirement (which is much less than what the ODbL
requires).
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
More information about the talk
mailing list