Apparent use of unauthorised source for beach names in Australia

slice0 · 2024-07-01T05:17:34.864Z

I also think its very alarming that our DWG member hangs out on unofficial OSM channels and makes huge mass deletions based on this chatter with out any citations.

Taya_S · 2024-07-01T07:14:15.983Z

Thanks you,
I went and checked all the areas I’ve been mapping at and readded a bunch of the removed beaches based on aerial imagery. All should be good again.

tastrax · 2024-07-01T09:04:19.770Z

It was disappointing we got no response in relation to a waiver but it was very obvious they were copied from a copyright site. I also suspect it was an undocumented organised editing campaign.

slice0 · 2024-07-01T09:18:39.971Z

beaches are named by the local council and state governments and publicy release and become public information, if the surf life saving club choose to host a list/database of these name they do not automatically posses the IP and own the copyright of these names. Australian beaches are even protected by the federal government. I might be missing something here or been left out because of discord chatter but what am I missing? If people want to role play as copyright lawyers that fine but stop destroying the map in the process.

tastrax · 2024-07-01T10:02:26.813Z

Find me a council / state government source for “Beach 1332” in South Australia

slice0 · 2024-07-01T10:16:06.135Z

if the data is not accurate you can always use this map NationalMap to fix it. Every single bit of public information is available there and open to be used by anyone. Surf life saving sounds like a dodgy source and it probably is , but the information can still be verified quite easily if needed. I very skeptical when it comes to random OSM users deciding legal matters.

slice0 · 2024-07-01T10:22:37.680Z

also Beach 1332 could be correct, a few years ago there was a legal case where beaches were handed over to first nation people and were assigned random numbers during the process. It can get complex and uneducated people will not be able to grasp the concept of it.

slice0 · 2024-07-01T10:37:18.176Z

and how do you know “beach 1332” isnt what its called in the local area which can’t be verified by any source just some random editor calling it that because that what it looks like from the ground which over writes official data anyway lol

woodpeck · 2024-07-01T12:49:48.000Z

In OSM we are trying to keep our database free. If we allow people to
add copyrighted data into OSM then that harms the idea of a free
database. Firstly, it could earn us a “pirate” reputation and some of
our “competitors” would be happy to use anything to tarnish OSM.
Secondly, it could even lead to an innocent OSM user becoming the
subject of legal action because they used what they believe to be free data.

Hence, if there is reasonable doubt about the legacy of a source (e.g.
the source has a copyright notice on their web site…), we should
follow up on that; and if we then contact those who contributed the data
and they either remain silent or vanish, then we should err on the side
of caution and remove the data.

That has nothing to do with “random OSM users deciding legal matters”,
it doesn’t make us “uneducated”, and neither “role playing as copyright
lawyers” (all quotes: @slice0) - it is simply good judgement.

slice0 · 2024-07-01T13:05:41.132Z

the names of our beaches are not copyrighted, especially not by the surf life saving club. It is open and public data.

Diacritic · 2024-07-01T22:39:10.568Z

Hi Slice.

Your concerns have been addressed earlier in the thread.

Let’s keep this thread on topic.

Diacritic · 2024-07-02T05:21:12.871Z

Diacritic · 2024-07-02T05:21:44.500Z

slice0 · 2024-07-02T05:52:02.849Z

I made a diary entry so it wont get deleted slice0’s Diary | OpenStreetMap

Mammi71 · 2024-07-02T06:53:31.428Z

slice0:

the names of our beaches are not copyrighted, especially not by the surf life saving club. It is open and public data.

You just don’t get it. You can’t or don’t want to understand it.

It doesn’t matter if the names of beaches are public data, protected names or not protected.

Even on Google Maps we find many names that are not even protected as names. Nevertheless, we are not allowed to take names from Google Maps. Full stop! That’s it!

slice0 · 2024-07-02T07:08:09.498Z

I cant even see where the link is between the data that was on the map and the surf live saving club in the first place, what ever the link is it is completely undocumented. This is not the right way to go about a massive deletion like this of public and open data.

This public data has been on OSM for over 2 years, nobody owns the data.

this is open and public data for any use at all.

it is against OSM policy to delete a massive amount of legal data with out proper formalities.

have a look at my post history here to see how much data I have had to save in the past because of users deleting information based on poor understanding and dont even know what is legal and illegal.

I have no trust that people here know what they are doing in the legal sense, the changesets even have “apparently” in the edit which is not conclusive.

slice0 · 2024-07-02T07:10:35.294Z

I copy and pasted my reply in my diary incase this gets removed slice0’s Diary | DWG member fizzie has deleted a massive amount of legal and public data from the map | OpenStreetMap

slice0 · 2024-07-02T07:28:20.384Z

we have full permission to use the same data as what google maps uses Legal Notices for Google Maps/Google Earth and Google Maps/Google Earth APIs – Google , except google is far more accurate and up to date because is doesnt use old and outdated “whats on the ground” for road classification instead it uses actual official data.

tastrax · 2024-07-02T07:50:09.109Z

slice0:

also Beach 1332 could be correct, a few years ago there was a legal case where beaches were handed over to first nation people and were assigned random numbers during the process.

Can you point me to this case and any dataset with those numbered beaches?

Diacritic · 2024-07-02T07:59:01.061Z