Documentation of GISTDA import


could we please add here details regarding the GISTDA import?

Especially the license involved and the permission to use this in OSM.

Also the steps taken to ensure we are not going to have duplicates or how to ensure the position of the POI is correct.



Regarding de-duplication.

For example in 10m distance of this new POI:
node 7688165138

are two older duplicates. These suffer from a bad tagging, but now there are three hospital POI.
node 5279506921
node 5229874322

Besides the missing Thai name, the node 5279506921 has way more details.

Can you give us some background, Stephan? I have no idea what this import is.

I imported the data from here

It’s a kind of open data from Thailand Government, with no specific terms of use.

For duplication problem, I’m sorry for mistake on checking. I’ve already checked it while I imported but there is still some duplication.
I will re-checked it again, thanks.



“no specific terms of use” usually says, that the relevant party did not specify. Then full copyright applies.
As it is from some “open data” context, maybe there is something? I hope Mishari ready this and can contribute. I think he researched a bit in the open data area.

Imports have to be documented, at least when we enter a larger scale as it is the case here.
See a step-by-step guide here:

Your did use this one?

It states:
Credits (Attribution)

Also multiple times the Government open data is mentioned.

So is it this license?

To my understanding this requires to show attribution.
Have you clarified that for example listing it in probably this page would be sufficient?

This is already the case for many open government data sources, but it requires a specific written permission.
Specifically by agreeing to the contributor terms you acknowledge, that you own the right on the data you upload:

Specific attribution requirements can not fulfilled. I could take the data you uploaded from OSM API and use it fully under terms of ODbL. If this violates any 3rd party rights, then you violated their rights by importing. Data has then to be redacted to avoid OSM becoming the target of a potentially costly lawsuit.


ในการนำข้อมูลไม่ว่าทั้งหมดหรือบางส่วนไปใช้งาน หรือดำเนินการอื่นเพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ใด ๆ อันชอบด้วยกฎหมายของผู้ใช้ข้อมูล ผู้ใช้ข้อมูลต้องอ้างอิงถึงหน่วยงานของรัฐที่เป็นผู้จัดทำข้อมูล โดยใส่ข้อความเพื่อแสดงถึงแหล่งที่มาของข้อมูลเปิดภาครัฐ วันที่เข้าถึงข้อมูล และข้อมูลอื่น ๆ ที่จำเป็น ทั้งนี้ หากข้อมูลนั้นไม่ได้ระบุถึงหน่วยงานของรัฐที่เป็นผู้จัดทำข้อมูล หรือเป็นข้อมูลที่เกิดจากการรวบรวมมาจากหน่วยงานของรัฐหลายแห่ง ให้ผู้ใช้ข้อมูลใช้รูปแบบการอ้างอิงโดยใช้ข้อความดังนี้

“สิทธิการใช้ข้อมูล ภายใต้ข้อกำหนดการให้ใช้ข้อมูลของศูนย์กลางข้อมูลเปิดภาครัฐ”

การอ้างอิงถึงหน่วยงานของรัฐดังกล่าวข้างต้น ถือเป็นสาระสำคัญของข้อกำหนดนี้ หากผู้ใช้ข้อมูลไม่ปฏิบัติตาม ถือว่าข้อมูลในส่วนที่รูปแบบการอ้างอิงไม่ถูกต้องเป็นการใช้ข้อมูลโดยไม่เป็นไปตามข้อกำหนด

I use this

It states no Credits (Attribution)

This license is applied only to the data provided at, which is distributed by the DGA.
I can’t find any terms on GISTDA portal website.

However, to avoid any problem that may occured, then remove it from OSM may be a good choice.

If I would have to choose between keeping your import of the hundret thousand non-aligned building footprints of HOT mapping sessions I would prefer yours.

Is there any way that you can contact the provider of the data set to ask for permission for OSM import?


While looking at your source, I noticed they are in WKID 3857 (102100).

  "spatialReference": {
   "wkid": 102100,
   "latestWkid": 3857

OpenStreetMap data is in EPSG:4326. Did you reproject the coordinates before import?

Yes, I’ve already reprojected it. By the way, the point in that file is sometimes not much accurate.

For the reason I imported this kind of things to OSM is - I’ve seen that many major hospital in Thailand haven’t been mapped yet. So I imported them so at least we can have the main hospital mapped.

For accuracy, I can take time for a while to check it one by one and manually re-mapped. Then we can get rid of a problem about permission.


As with many government provisions of GIS data, GISTDA Portal isn’t very clear about its terms of use. It appears to be intended as a portal for hosting content, where users should individually provide licensing details. (For example, the portal does host some items provided by the DGA like this set of tambon locations, which mentions the relevant licence.)

For items where such detail isn’t provided, like the current set of hospitals, I think it may mean either that
(a) that the compilation is the original work of the uploader (this is what I take from the statement “Credits (Attribution): No acknowledgements.”), who intends to make it freely available to use. This doesn’t mean it’s free under open content terms. Or,
(b) the uploader may have built upon other sources but didn’t take care to ensure that proper licensing was followed.

I’m not quite sure how GISTDA Portal approves users. (Is it limited to GISTDA employees, or open to the public upon approval?) If it’s just employees, we could probably ask their central office if there’s a general policy. Otherwise, we’ll need to ask the individual user. In any case, I wouldn’t assume that the data is free with absolutely no restrictions.

I’d say this would be the safest route. Since copyright over sets of data exists only for the compilation itself, and the individual coordinates are uncopyrightable, it should be fine to proceed this way.


Paul is correct. In Thailand there’s the formal licensing notices drafted by bureaucrats and customary uses which is often free for all. Trying to get the two reconciled, I’ve often been met with quizzical looks where officials basically say “why don’t you just go ahead and use it, it’s already available”.

The Open Government License isn’t very useful, in the very least because it stipulates the data can only be used for lawful purpose and there’s no guarantee that the use of the data will always be in line with Thai laws.

Best Regards