In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data;
---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import.>>
Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them.
Start here on my page of genealogy tools http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
Near the top there's a link to the USGS called "Find a Town" which takes you here http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=127:1:1089405488282263
You can look for more than just "towns", for example airports, cemeteries, creeks, whatever. For example look for Baptist in Arkansas, Hempstead County and you get eighteen entries with latitude and longitude for the Baptist churches.
W.J.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data;
---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import.>>
Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them.
I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested in. That is not the issue.
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap.
Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even gets more interesting.
The content that is not available freely are things like business listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points that are not available from any free source, except to go there with a gps and record the location itself.
I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would be a great benefit to the total human knowledge.
thanks,
mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data;
---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import.>>
Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them.
I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested in. That is not the issue.
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap.
Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even gets more interesting.
The content that is not available freely are things like business listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points that are not available from any free source, except to go there with a gps and record the location itself.
I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would be a great benefit to the total human knowledge.
thanks,
mike
Use of Google Maps website to derive data does not convey copyrightability. That would be like saying that Adobe has copyright of a graphic design you created in Photoshop, wouldn't it?
Cary
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org