tldr: I want to propose a Wikipage, with any map/aerial image, and if it is possible to be used when editing OSM.
Just recently I found https://basemap.de/ and also found that it should be compliant with OSM, but than I read the 100+ entries from Maps4BW und basemap.de , and I was not sure.
What I started to understand was, Aerial imagery and public maps are provided OSM compliant, because local OSM-associations and activists are writing emails and go into contact with responsible goverments.
During my mapping I often get along such public maps and think to my self: Did someone ask by now? If yes, how do I use it correctly?
I would like to propose wikipage as a list of any map/area-image, what is the current legal state towards using it for editing. And maybe also a link who is invested in getting in contact with. There may also be a short description why Google Maps is not ok.
The problem is that the default legal situation, at least for maps, is that we can’t use them and there is, IMHO, little added value in spending effort documenting that for specific sources were you wouldn’t expect it any way.
You statement that they “should be complaint” is wrong. Most of that data is published under Datenlizenz Deutschland Namensnennung 2.0. The license requires attribution. However, the Open Database License requires attribution for OSM only and it is not feasible to attribute all 753 data providers whose data is visible in the current map view. Therefore, anything licensed with an attribution requirement is not compatible for OSM except if we receive a license without such a requirement.
Check your regional wiki pages, for example in Australia we have Australian Data Sources - OpenStreetMap Wiki which includes sources people have attempted to use over the years which we can’t use, along with the reasoning, also includes those we’ve requested the OSMF CC BY waiver or tracing waiver from.
Semi-off topic, but it’s a shame OSM’s license is written in such a way that it’s not compatible with itself. Seems to violate the golden rule “do to others as you would have them do to you”.
OSM’s license says “if you contribute data, you must allow us to use it without attribution”, while simultaneously telling others “you can’t use our data without attribution”.
Perhaps one day we’ll have Creative Commons 5.0 licenses that OSMF view as suitable for data and support a concept of attribution chaining. Then OpenStreetMap can move back to Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 5.0, and we can incorporate Creative Commons Attribution 5.0 data without any extra waivers. OpenStreetMap attributes all our direct contributor data, and downstream users of OpenStreetMap just attribute OpenStreetMap.
None of that is correct, just like all other commonly used open data licenses the ODbL doesn’t require that you credit third party sources (in a Collective database), but it doesn’t forbid it either.
It is just that most relevant licenses would require downstream attribution over multiple levels and there is no way we can require or even remotely enforce that without adding additional terms and conditions to the licence (which again no other open data licence has afaik). Not to mention that all of that would be highly impractical.
Actually, no, that would not solve the downstream attribution issue.
It -would- solve the other issues with CC BY-SA licences (DTM/technical measures, viral application to collective database components that have sui generis protection), at the expense of ruling out the majority of all OSM uses.
What, specifically, is incorrect about what I said?
Are you saying OSM’s license does not require downstream importers to credit OSM? Or that it does not effectively prohibit us from importing data sources which themselves require credit?
That’s what I said. The existing license as written is incompatible with itself.
As said, then there is no commonly in use open data licence that is compatible with itself (outside of CC0 but that wouldn’t solve the issue either).
But again: there is nothing stopping you from using a Collective database with multiple independent databases all licensed on ODbL terms, it would just be very very impractial for OSM.
Why would CC0 not solve the issue? It might create other issues, certainly, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t solve this one (allowing other works licensed under the same terms to be imported).
CC0: well you would still end up asking owners of otherwise licenced material for permission, just with the issue that there wouldn’t be any chain back that could be used to provide attribution at all.
That’s a difficult sell, particularly given that having to do that in a scenario where we -are- providing (central) attribution is what started this sub topic.
We (Dutch community) ask potential contributors to agree to be a listed contributor, and agree to “OpenStreetMap contributors” as the attribution. Nowadays, many sources agree to this, and we include the permission (usually an e-mail) in the contributor list.
Right, my point is that at least that wouldn’t be hypocritical, requiring downstream users of our data to adhere to terms we ourselves aren’t willing to adhere to when accepting data from upstream sources.
That seems quite reasonable. Does OSM’s license permit downstream consumers to do the same with our data though? (E.g. “Project A” could list “OpenStreetMap contributors” as one of their data contributors, while only requiring downstream users of their data to list “Project A contributors” as a source.)
Thanks