Licensing Working Group
Tuesday 15th May 2012
18:00 - 18:55 GMT
Agenda & Minutes
Present: Dermot McNally, Simon Poole, Richard Weait, Grant Slater, Michael Collinson, Oliver Kühn (20:20)
Apologies: Oliver, Henk
Minutes by: Michael
1. Adoption of Minutes of last meetings
The LWG last met May 8th for a long-form meeting.
2. MATTERS ARISING (open action items from previous meetings)
3. Finalise today's agenda
4. Technical Rebuild
Progress and issues
A weekly update will go out to the rebuilld list. Nothing for LWG to look at.
Lost mappers: Simon ran an update of odbl.poole.ch, as expected not a lot of movement (there is a larger adoption in Poland that is not reflected in the numbers yet). The initial lost mappers list is now down from 1014 to 563 - a reduction of 45%.
5. Hall of Shame
This will be transferred to the OSMF registered office address in the UK. We also understand that most formal contacts will be made via email. Full address, fax address, telephone number and the site(s) we are registering.
This is a summary of our discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of position:
To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often proprietary business information or personal information such as a patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does not exist. Anything that is tagged with a lat/lon becomes "geographic", so that cannot be used as a starting point. Further, reverse geocoding may extract from the OSM database lot’s of other information that goes well beyond the basic scope of lat/lon and an address or building name.
Richard suggested a concept which we will explore further for basic sanity and obvious gotchas before throwing it open for community discussion. Loosely, this could be called the Like with Like principle. Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is virally touched, but nothing else. "Used" would include the parameters used to do the look-up, i.e. addresses/building names/telephone numbers ...; any filters or reverse filters applied, e.g. you restrict it to pubs; and what exactly you extract back. Broadly, the result we might want is that if you geocode a bunch of addresses, then we want any extra geocoded addresses that you have, but we don't want, say, the patient record from which the address came. Similarly, if are looking at pubs only and you extract location, the fact that it is a pub and its name, then we want your pub location and names back, but we might not want your pub reviews or other data that you have exclusively collected and NOT augmented from OSM.
Tuesday May 22nd 18:00 UTC / 19:00 BST(UK) / 20:00 CEST