Apparent use of unauthorised source for beach names in Australia

[slice0]

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

[Mammi71 (One feature, Six mappers and still More ways to map it)]

@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]

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]

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]

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Maps/Google Earth APIs – Google , except google is far more accurate and up to date because is doesnt use old and outdated “whats on the ground” for road classification instead it uses actual official data.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]

@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]

I’m closing this topic now, as we are retreading the same ground.

Slice, you have an incorrect understanding of how copyright, data licensing and the ODbL works in the context of OpenStreetMap. This was explained earlier in the thread.

This isn’t a controversial or untested topic. Rather, these matters are well understood, particularly by the DWG who are expressly empowered to deal with these matters.

I’d encourage you to take some time away from arguing on this point and reflect on what has been explained to you, both about this subject and civility/decorum in general.