I had reached out to TxDOT about using their data for tracing on OSM.
The ODbL doesn’t restrict commercial use, so this is unlikely to work.
4 Likes
Dang. I was hoping to have a useful tool for contributors. Oh well, it was a worth a shot at least.
They’re asking you to not redistribute the data you get from TxDOT. They aren’t (and arguably can’t) restrict the data you produce based on the TxDOT data.
In other words, if you download the data from TxDOT, set up a website where you charge $90 for access to the exact same data that you downloaded from TxDOT, you would be violating their terms of use. Creating new data into OSM is not covered under that terms of use.
What kind of GIS data are we talking about here? Is it ready-made road centerlines, or aerial imagery that you trace off of or use as a reference? Many state agencies in the U.S. view tracing from aerials as a form of derivation they have no interest in restricting, though there are exceptions. You could seek more clarity on that point; it would help to know what you asked for or how you described our prospective use of the data.
1 Like
It would be road lines from GIS.
If the road centerline dataset only covers the state highway system, the data might already be part of a federal dataset that aggregates state and local datasets, such as ARNOLD, HPMS, or TIGER. These datasets are definitively in the public domain (even allowing commercial redistribution). HPMS in particular carries a wealth of metadata.
Every time I’ve checked TIGER it barely has anything at all. I’ll check the others though.
ARNOLD and HPMS only cover major roads that are part of the National Highway System – roads useful to truckers, more or less. TIGER is supposed to be comprehensive, but it depends on local government submissions. There probably isn’t anything nearly as comprehensive as TxDOT’s road network dataset.
Rereading their response, I think they’re saying the standard TxDOT terms of use prohibit incorporating the data into anything that could potentially be resold – which our license allows. However, since you’re interested in using this data for OSM, they’re saying they’d be willing to work out a special agreement. I suggest taking them up on that offer, at least to see what they’d be willing to provide under compatible terms. Some of us who work on OpenHistoricalMap recently reached a similar agreement with the Ohio Department of Transportation for their aerial imagery. If it helps, let them know we’re willing to provide credit on the wiki.
1 Like
I just want to reiterate that that’s not what they’re saying. They don’t say anything about “incorporating”, mixing the data, reusing the data, etc.
I don’t mean to belittle others’ opinions, but it’s a useful exercise to read the terms of use section by section:
This data was produced for internal use and is provided for informational purposes only and is subject to change. TxDOT makes no warranty of any kind as to the accuracy or validity of the data provided.
This phrasing is meant to protect the state DOT in the case that something about the data is wrong. They don’t want to be sued if someone uses this data and drives off a cliff or into a river and drowns.
GIS content and data provided is the property of TxDOT and may not be used for commercial purposes or resold.
You cannot use the data (i.e. the file you download from them or that they send you) for commercial purposes. You can’t put it behind a paywall.
Distribution of this content to third parties without TxDOT’s written consent is strictly prohibited.
You can’t send the file you download to other people with TxDOT’s consent. You can transform the downloaded data into another form (i.e. convert it into vector tiles, trace it to generate OSM data, print it out on an A4 piece of paper) but they want someone who is looking for the data to go to TxDOT for the most accurate and up to date data and to read their warranty disclaimer.
We should totally reach out and build a relationship with TxDOT, help them understand what OSM is and why we want to use their data for the project, etc. Maybe they have more data that they’d be interested in sharing with us that isn’t obviously public, for example.
It’s also a good idea to get explicit permission if she’s offering it.
But these terms of use don’t prohibit your use of this data to improve OSM.
You are making lots of assumptions about how the data would be used for “improving” OSM .
From the wording it is clear that direct inclusion in OSM will violate their standard terms. If those terms are legally binding or not, and if a derivative of the original data would not be covered by them are separate questions that counsel would have to advise on (kind of assuming that you are not licensed to practice law in TX).
Naturally there is no harm in laying out the situation in front of them and asking if they could somehow accommodate OSM, but that wasn’t the original question.
Yea, I definitely broke my rule of not expressing legal opinions on the internet. I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. We’re all just doing our best at interpretations.
I agree wholeheartedly. The distinction I’m making is that the thing they care about “directly including” into OSM is the data downloaded verbatim from their website. Luckily, we can’t do that because OSM doesn’t support uploads of Shapefiles or GDB.
I sent an email to the Licensing Working Group to see what they think.