Naming roads/streets in Queensland, Australia

[BrackoNe]

Thanks to Land & Spatial Information, Dept of Natural Resources Mines and Energy, Queensland, we are able to properly name the road/street network in Queensland, Australia.

Land & Spatial Information recognized the power of OpenStreetMap and after all real-life issues they had (bushfires, COVID-19), they agreed that their current license is sufficient for naming the roads/streets in that territory.

The process itself does not include any import.
We will use their vector map as a base map, and editors will name the roads according to the base map. If there is a coverage of Mapillary or OpenStreetCam, or any change made by local mapper differs gov data, we will double check it and contact the user if it is necessary.

Letter is attached to this post:

[FrakGart]

You have misunderstood what they have said. They are saying that they will not sign the required waiver. As a result you are not allowed to use it in OpenStreetMap. This has been discussed multiple times on the talk-au list, the last time was in September 2019:

https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg12284.html

[tastrax]

Alas, not able to be used in OSM

https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

[govindhh]

Thanks for the comments. The letter above from the government officials has been reviewed by our legal team at Microsoft, deeming this acceptable use.

[FrakGart]

@govindhh that's great to hear. The next step is for you to pass that advice onto the LWG and see if you can get them to agree. After that, an email to the talk-au mail list explaining that you are planning this import would be nice (as required by the import guidelines)

[tastrax]

You might also consider halting this map roulette challenge until the legal working group for OSM has indicated that the data is in fact OK to use in OSM

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/13837

[andrewharvey]

Thanks @BrackoNe for posting the letter here, since you posted I also reached out to the LWG to confirm their advice, and the feedback I've received from LWG was along the lines of

This letter is the equivalent of a waiver and it demonstrates that:

[Queensland Goverenment] do not believe there is incompatibility between CC-BY 4.0 and ODbL, and thus their data can be used for OSM.

CC-BY is a contract between the licensor (Queensland) and the licensee (everyone else) so if the licensor interprets certain ambiguous clauses in it a certain way and states so in writing, then I think we can rely on that.

So based on this feedback from the LWG I think this sufficiently covers DNRM's use of CC BY 4.0 data in OSM.

[simonpoole]

Could we all hold the horses? The LWG has not voiced a formal opinion on this yet.

[andrewharvey]

Could we all hold the horses? The LWG has not voiced a formal opinion on this yet.

Sorry @simonpoole!

[govindhh]

All good inputs. Thanks everyone for the guidance. Putting a pause on this work.

[simonpoole]

The LWG is trying to clear this all up by spelling out exactly what we believe compatibility with the ODbL entails and that our understanding of their statement allows us to do, just so that we don't end up with a bad case of sour grapes if they didn't actually grasp the situation completely, that wouldn't help anybody. @BrackoNe would it be possible to forward me (simon@osmfoundation.org) your contact?

[BrackoNe]

@simonpoole I have sent you an email.

[simonpoole]

@BrackoNe received, thanks.

[Fizzie41]

Do we have any updates on this, thanks?

[simonpoole]

Do we have any updates on this, thanks?

The LWG (that I'm not longer a member of since end of October last year) should have contacted MS about the result of the discussion. After some delay we received what I believe was a very clear "No" from the relevant department. The LWG may have other thoughts on this, and my answer should not be taken as the LWGs position on the matter.

[kathleenlu09]

I have confirmed with MS that the map roulette challenge was archived last year.

[tastrax]

Still available if you have the direct link https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/13837 . I will inform MapRoulette of this anomaly in the system.

[mvexel]

Whoever created this Challenge should delete it. See my comment in the linked issue above.

[morb-au-public]

Can I highlight this statement from the Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) from the attached letter:

data accessible from the Queensland Spatial Catalogue [...] licensed under the [...] CC:BY 4.0 licence [...] permits OpenStreetMap to copy and redistribute the data, and remix, transform and build upon the data for any purpose

This statement is expressing DNRME's intent in respect of their CC BY 4.0 data. It essentially functions as the "explicit permission for use in OpenStreetMap from licensors of CC BY databases and data" contemplated in https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

Additionally, section 2.a.5.B of CC:BY 4.0 contemplates "Technological Effective Measures", but the DNRME's view is that Technological Effective Measures are no matter: DNRME also permits its CC:BY 4.0 data for any purpose.

Thank you, Nemanja, for making the enquiry and posting the DNRME's response.

[simonpoole]

Can I highlight this statement from the Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) from the attached letter:

As I pointed out #49 (comment) they issued a very clear no when asked directly for a clarification of their position if their statement would allow the integration in OSM and redistribution on ODbL terms.

There is really no point in re-opening this except if there is a significant change of policy in the DNRME which for all practical purposes means except if their leadership has changed.

[morb-au-public]

As I pointed out #49 (comment) they issued a very clear no when asked directly for a clarification of their position if their statement would allow the integration in OSM and redistribution on ODbL terms.

I appreciate the quick follow up.

May I have access to this DNRME followup correspondence? Because what you're saying seems out of alignment with their Open data strategy 2018-2020, which in turn stemmed from the whole of Queensland Government Open Data Policy Statement, which in turn stemmed from the International Open Data Charter Principles.

There is the possibility of approaching the administering Minister for Digital Economy and/or Minister for Resources to enquire as to how their open data policy is flowing down into specific Departmental correspondence.

[simonpoole]

May I have access to this DNRME followup correspondence?

You will need to ask the LWG about that.

I will note that given this had been going on for two years at that point with multiple different community members and Microsoft contacting them I promised the contact there that we would stop pestering them about the matter if we received a clear answer.

Because what you're saying seems out of alignment with their Open data strategy 2018-2020, which in turn stemmed from the whole of Queensland Government Open Data Policy Statement, which in turn stemmed from the International Open Data Charter Principles.

I'm not sure why you come to that conclusion, CC BY 4.0 is an open licence, it is just more restrictive than what would be suitable for use/inclusion in OSM. They do not state that their goal is universal compatibility and reuse, actually if that had been the case they would have chosen a licence that does not codify a "diet coke" version of share alike.

[morb-au-public]

they would have chosen a licence that does not codify a "diet coke" version of share alike

@simonpoole, my recollection was Queensland Government was investigating decreasing the cost to business and the community in dealing with government data c.2004, resulting in the GILF initiative, then expanded to the remainder of Australian Governments c.2010 through the AusGOAL initiative.

I don't recall the ODbL 1.0 license being a thing back in 2005, only Creative Commons, when GILF's choice of licensing system was made. One of GILF's purposes was to provide a simple licensing system that could replace the many complex licensing practices that were previously in use.

Queensland Government even established a policy (back in 2009) of applying the broadest or least restrictive use rights that are legally and operationally applicable to information products.

So I guess something's been lost in translation, and I'll have to study the current situation some more and get back to you. Or is direct to LWG more appropriate?