Apparent use of unauthorised source for beach names in Australia

silversurfer83 · 2024-01-31T12:40:32.904Z

My first Q is: what did the mappers have to say about this?

If they have been made aware of the wrongful use of the data abd still continue to do so I believe a shot across the bow by the DWG is in order

fortera_au · 2024-01-31T21:00:41.372Z

A comment was left on the last changeset of at least 8 identified users, no responses so far, and one of them did actually delete their account following this.

adamh · 2024-03-05T03:48:21.242Z

I noted this on the talk-au mail group back in December 2021. [talk-au] Stealth import of beach names?

Most of the conversation happened off-thread, but the theory at the time was that this could be an annual school project

tastrax · 2024-03-05T05:43:06.355Z

I am in contact with Beachsafe - hopefully we get an answer this week or a redaction of beach names will commence.

Fizzie41 · 2024-06-30T23:29:13.057Z

After a lot of reverting, almost all of the improperly copied beach names should now be gone, although some will still be there, as those users have since deleted their accounts.

As always though, reversions of this size will have also caused some collateral damage, so if you spot any, I’d ask if you could please fix it?

From looking at when they were created, there were all bursts done in June then Dec 21; May, Aug & Dec 22; then May & Sep 23, so they may start up again over the next few months?

If you spot them reappearing, please raise a ticket to data@osmfoundation.org ASAP.

Thanks!

slice0 · 2024-07-01T04:46:27.378Z

im pretty sure the official names of beaches isnt owned or copyrighted by anybody. I think it falls under fair use, its the equivalent of saying you cant write a synopsis of a movie because the movie is copyrighted. If surf life saving have a database of these names then it’s ok. I dont trust the knowledge or education of the average OSM user to be able to say what the legal issue here is.

I dont like to see information like this deleted based on assumptions.

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