added source "Ortofotomozaika SR" #844
Conversation
|
Is there anything from my side to help with merging this pull request? It's been 23 days already without any reaction. |
|
I'm just not sure about the license terms if that indeed allows use in OSM, has this been discussed anywhere else already? |
|
@andrewharvey Thanks for your reply. License of the source data is at https://www.geoportal.sk/files/zbgis/objednavky/podmienky_poskytovania_a_pouzivania_udajov_ortofotomozaiky.pdf. Generally it says that we can use it for commercial or noncommercial purposes without any warranty and we must attribute the source with text "© GKÚ, NLC; r.2017 - 2019" - which is mentioned at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors. |
|
Hi @andrewharvey. Is there still something missing for merging this pull request? |
|
Any chance for this to be merged? People are using old Bing maps and destroying what has alreay been mapped by more precise and actual sources. Is there anybody else I can discuss with to merge it? @grischard? @rbuffat? Anybody? |
That's probably okay, but I'm just not comfortable making that call without maybe the LWG giving it a stamp of approval. |
|
@andrewharvey so what should we do here for LWG to give it stamp of approval? |
|
@simonpoole would you have time to review this license? I know with CC we need to ask for confirmation that attribution on the wiki page is enough as we can't attribute in every place OSM is used, so that's the part I was unsure about with this license. Then there is also a section
which doesn't sound good, but maybe it's just a bad translation. |
The translation is correct, but this condition applies to the source data, that we have obtained from the GKÚ. The source data consists from 3 regions (west / middle / east Slovakia). Martin joined the source data to one big geotiff, adjusted projection (S-JTSK), and generated the tiles. These tiles are provided from https://ofmozaika.tiles.freemap.sk/ (which is the subject of this pull request), and the source data are kept in a safe place, therefore we are NOT violating this condition. |
|
Hello. A week has passed without a reply so let me kindly remind you. |
|
Reviewing the license translation at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Slovakia/Sources#Ortofotomozaika_SR_.28orthophoto_by_GK.C3.9A_and_NLC.29 my interpretation and thoughts on suitability for use in OSM are below. So I'm still not comfortable with using this data in OSM unless it has been discussed and it's clear we can use it in OSM.
No issue, actually this part is irrelevant for use in OSM whether the data is available free or paid makes no difference to the license that data is made available under.
What if someone took some source data included it in OSM, but then someone took OSM and filtered out only data from this source? Would that mean then it's not a new work and hence doesn't have the license grant? I think to include in OSM we can't have any lingering limitations for this scenario.
It's not clear exactly how such attribution can be made. People using OSM data are only expected to attribution OSM and not every source that OSM includes. OSM can provide attribution to contributors on the wiki page, but downstream users of OSM don't. This is one of the things we use the CC BY waiver to clarify, I'm not sure if the simple statement on attribution in this license is an issue or not.
|
|
Is this source aerial imagery or a map? |
|
It is aerial imagery. |
I guess in that case any tracing is considered creating your own work derivative from the source, and so you can not go back and re-created the source exactly from the traced data. So that second point is probably fine then. |
|
This is something that to my knowledge does not have a well established body of case law (anywhere).
However as a rule, OSM will not violate ToU or in general take advantage of grey areas of the application of copyright legislation. In other words: when in doubt, we need explicit permission.
Simon
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
|
|
@simonpoole We have finally obtained explicit permission to use Ortofotomozaik SR from the authority. Content of the email:
I have already fulfilled their request to update tagging (source=Ortofotomozaika SR) and authority name on wiki.osm.org pages. |
|
BTW how will iD (and other editors using this project) know that it should add source="Ortofotomozaika SR" changeset tag? |
|
@zdila I don't think that there is a mechanism that automatically adds a source tag: See these discussions: |
|
I don't believe we currently have any sources used in OSM that require object level attribution via tags because this is not possible to ensure happens. Most sources we just attribute on the Contributors wiki page, but basically make no guarantees you could even identify which changesets or objects used the source. As new contributors come along and edit the features and they then remove the source tag, does that put us in violation of the attribution? I think that's a very risky position to put the project in where certain tags are legally mandated. |
|
@andrewharvey They actually only adjusted existing text we provided them from wiki. It is a simmilar thing to that features mapped using Bing should be tagged with source=Bing, nothing special. Or do you see there any blocker? They don't request us that it must be possible to track individual changes or objects. It is only mentioned that if something is with source="Ortofotomozaika SR" then it comes from this imagery. Please let me know if we shold do any other steps but honestly I would really not like to ask them again for something else. |
source=Bing is just something that is there to help mappers understand where the change was source, it's not there for legal attribution. You could omit the source=Bing while still tracing from Bing and be okay legally just makes it harder for other mappers to understand where information in the changes were sourced. Not sure if this is a blocker but just something I noticed and wanted to raise. |
For source="Ortofotomozaika SR" it sounds the same. Or is it somewhere written something else? Please let me know what to do to make this pull request merged. Thanks. |
|
For completeness let me include my email requestion for explicit Ortofotomozaika SR usage permission:
|
|
Is there still something blocking for this pull request to be merged? Please let me know if there is something I could help with to merge it. |
|
Merged, thank you @zdila ! |
|
Thank you too! |
| @@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ | |||
| "min_zoom": 0, | |||
| "country_code": "SK", | |||
| "type": "tms", | |||
| "license_url": "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Slovakia/Sources#Ortofotomozaika_SR_.28orthophoto_by_GK.C3.9A_and_NLC.29" | |||
| "license_url": "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Slovakia/Sources#Ortofotomozaika_SR_.28orthophoto_by_GK.C3.9A_and_NLC.29", | |||
| "privacy_policy_url": "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Slovakia/Sources#Ortofotomozaika_SR_.28orthophoto_by_GK.C3.9A_and_NLC.29" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How is that a privacy_policy_url?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is expected to be in privacy policy? Something from https://www.geoportal.sk/sk/udaje/ortofotomozaika/?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, "A URL for the privacy policy of the operator"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if there is nothing like that? Or I couldn't find one. Could it be this? https://www.geoportal.sk/files/zbgis/objednavky/podmienky_poskytovania_a_pouzivania_udajov_ortofotomozaiky.pdf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. It must be about the use of personal data (keyword GDPR). Simply remove it if there is none.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I will remove it then. Thanks.
No description provided.