|
Concerning the Nepal mapping project, http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1014 - the area I've been assigned around (27.86713,86.23494) has vastly better aerial images on Google. Just wanted to check that it's OK to reference this data without tracing, ie I can check on the nature of a building - for example in the Bing aerial data I see what might be a building, on Google I can see it's a temple, it's named and there are photos available.
Thanks. |
|
Just my personal opinion as a mapper, IANAL: That would be a very very slippery slope (note that you would not only look at a aerial photograph of a building but also using google's georeferencing/positions to find the location). Please just don't use them – maybe except for finding locations to which you want to go on the ground (visit in person) and survey (gps, your personal handwritten/electronic notes, …) and then do your OSM based on your own survey. Also, see the somehow similar (also not about a full tracing) question using-google-satellite-images-to-align-my-paths. Try other imagery resources OSM is currently allowed to use: currently e.g. Mapbox's aerial images (as preconfigured in iD and JOSM). As tempting as may be: a HOT activation does not mean to abandon our project's principles. The data which you now add will also stay in the future. If google (or its sat provider) does not want to release images in such situations, it is that way. So I see a blob on the Bing aerial view, could be a patch of scrub, flick to Google and see it's a well defined building ... that's not copying is it? Google don't own the information the image represents only the particular presentation of it.
(29 Apr '15, 01:17)
pbhj
@pbhj: yes, saying that some dark spot on bing looks like a building on google is not copying it. But e.g. how do you know at which location to look on google's imagery? Yes, I think this is a grey area – but if we want to have free (as in free speech, not necessarily as in free beer) content, then we cannot possibly infringe other people's rights. This would make our content unfree. By the way, but this is not our problem: as far as I see you would break their "terms of use" (e.g. § 2 (g)).
(29 Apr '15, 01:21)
aseerel4c26 ♦
I appreciate the desire to err on the side of caution - S2(g) of Terms I don't think is valid in the UK on the basis the contract can't overrule the allowance under database rights law of such activities (see eg http://www.out-law.com/page-5055 for caselaw). Would be interested to here an IP lawyers take on it. I'll assume however given your rating that you speak authoritatively for OSM in this and abide by your suggested restriction. Thanks.
(29 Apr '15, 02:24)
pbhj
1
@pbhj: in general, if you want to hear people who are possibly more an expert as I am, try to contact the legal talk mailing list (if you like mailing lists). However, I have asked a member of the LWG to comment here. So wait for this. Please note, that I do not speak authoritatively for "OSM" (whoever this is ;-) ), sorry if something in my previous answer text version made you believe this. I am just a OSM contributor like you.
(29 Apr '15, 02:36)
aseerel4c26 ♦
|
|
General remarks (too long for a comment):
"you should suggest doing so to HOT" - how?
(29 Apr '15, 13:13)
pbhj
1
By mail for example (see hotosm.org ) or see the answer to https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/42677/satellite-image-quality-too-low-for-mapping-not-loading
(29 Apr '15, 13:16)
SimonPoole ♦
(29 Apr '15, 13:17)
aseerel4c26 ♦
|
