Imagery not usable outside OSM

[pnorman]

Some of the imagery in the index is not legally usable except for editing OpenStreetMap.

As a courtesy to others who may want to use the index for their own projects, should we indicate this?

[iandees]

This is a list of imagery specific to OSM editors. We might want to make that clear in the readme, but I don't think we should change the code or schema to indicate it.

[RobJN]

Given that this github project was designed to unify background sources and make life easier for the maintainer of the OSM editors, I would like to propose a radical idea: Why not be nice to our friends who contribute to Open Historic Map and add a new field in these schemas to indicate when they can use the layer (e.g. "OHM-approved" as Boolean)?

For transparency, please be aware that I am not a OHM contributor.

[iandees]

Why not ... add a new field in these schemas to indicate when they can use the layer (e.g. "OHM-approved" as Boolean)?

Adding project-specific stuff to another project's documents doesn't really make sense. It's kind of like saying there should be a flag in the XLSX format specifying if the document can be opened by LibreOffice.

If OpenHistoricalMap (or anyone, really) wants to build an index of imagery their project can use (and they happen to use the OSM editors), then I welcome them to use this repo as a guide. I'd be happy to help them clean out the stuff they can't use and add new stuff.

[RobJN]

Ian, Your example is just a wee but more extreme than comparing OSM and OHM, but I cannot see much love within the OSM community for sister projects like OHM so it doesn't come as much surprise. It's a shame that you seem unwilling to help other people as your US Local Chapter pledge suggested otherwise:

• "Work to increase visibility and diversity of the OpenStreetMap project in the US by reaching out to organizations like Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Sierra Club, and local student organizations".

Perhaps my efforts to engage with National Library of Scotland and broaden the appeal of OSM to new communities interested in Historic mapping (who could quite easily edit both in OHM and in OSM as the tools are the same) does not count?

In any case my primary interest lies with Pull Request #25.

p.s. Apologies that the tone of my replies is getting more negative. If you cannot decide what to do with my pull request then perhaps escalate it to our elected OSMF board members? I will have to take whatever they decide as gospel.

[iandees]

The question here is "should we indicate if imagery can be used outside OSM". My answer is that yes, we should make a note in the readme. @pnorman, do you have an idea of which layers are OSM-only?

[iandees]

( @RobJN, your message is offtopic here. I'll respond to your pull request. )

[jfirebaugh]

If someone wants to pull-request a README clarification that this is an imagery index for OSM proper that's fine. Otherwise, I want to avoid scope-creeping the project here.

[iandees]

@pnorman I'm happy to make that pull request if you give me a list of imagery that are OSM-only.

[pnorman]

Bing is the big one that comes to mind that I know is OSM-only. The concern more is that we add layers on the basis of if they're usable for OSM and don't consider if they're usable for other projects. I know some regions more commonly have special agreements from the data/imagery provider that gives permission to use in OSM. I'm not generally involved in those regions so I can't give specific imagery examples.

Strictly speaking, the terms of use for the imagery I host don't allow it but I don't object I'd be happy to add it when I get time