Changeset: 60232965
Added businesses based on the official shopping center map.
Closed by Adamant1
Tags
changesets_count | 7541 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.9.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Mapbox Satellite |
locale | en-US |
Discussion
-
Comment from Mateusz Konieczny
Sorry for troubling you again :(
"based on the official shopping center map." Is it on license allowing import to OSM? Unfortunately, by default it is fully copyrighted and requires permission from copyright owner (if you got permission - please mention it in edit descriptions).
I know it is is obnoxious, I am currently trying to get permission from one of mall owners in Poland (or at least some kind of reply).
-
Comment from Adamant1
No worries. I seem to be getting an ever growing group of stalkers lately. I prefer that though over no accountability. I was actually never clear on the copyright issue anyway. So I'm glad its being brought up.
In this particular case there was nothing explicitly stating the information was copyrighted on the website. So I took liberties to use it due to the bad state of how it was mapped before I put the information in there. I figured the shopping center would probably prefer correct information over stuff that was just outright wrong.
From what it says on the wiki about copyright, it sounds like it mostly extends to usage of proprietary commercial maps. Which I wouldn't use as sources. To me though, things like phone numbers and addresses are essentially public domain. So I don't see an issue with obtaining them from a website that isn't a commercial business directory in the way something like Google maps is. Otherwise, 90% of the business information on here should probably be removed. Since things like hours and phone numbers probably mostly don't come on the ground surveying.
A lot of times when dealing with notes people will make comments like "a basic Google search shows that" or "the company's website that" in order to correct things. I am sure none of them got implicit allowance from Google or the businesses, but it would be unrealistic to expect them to. Especially in cases where the information is already there but just being doubled checked.
I also think that since Google in particular already makes its money off the people viewing the information on their website or clicking through an add, what the person does with the information they gain from their website is really none of their business. Since the information is in their heads at that point. Which makes them the holder of it and therefore able to use it how they wish. Otherwise, people would have to be giving Google and other similar sites royalties on things like furniture that they created based on a Google search they did for how to make it. I don't see OSM should be any different. Which is neither here or there I guess, but is something I have been thinking about.
Id say in this particular case the shopping center gains more business from the information on here being correct. So I don't why it should be an issue. If there is something that needs to be removed though, I'm happy to do it because it still be more accurate than how it was originally. Plus, as they say "It is better to have mapped and been reverted, than to have never mapped at all." -
Comment from freebeer
Mornin', Ferda Mravanec, Stalker 13 checking in here and sounding off.
Methinks in the time you spent replying, you could have fired off a quick mail or call to the management and gotten a permission that would have been fine.
.
There is much that is debate-worthy, and while I would expect that a mall whose main business is not mapping would be fine with promoting their tenants, today I read of a case elsewhere a different interest business has made a copyright complaint. Better safe than sorry.
.
Copyright exists by default on everything published, unless specified otherwise. Further, while it may not be the case for you that individual facts can be copyrighted, in other jurisdictions, a collection of them can be, or comprises a protected database.
.
What you feel is no substitute for official permission, where here I feel a casual `no problem' via phone call is fine, but for a larger scale action, like the attempt to bulk import worldofstadiums.com and similar sites with a business interest depending on visitor clicks, I expect a more substantial waiver is necessary.
.
Ultimately, each mapper is responsible for their sources. Just because you feel a large amount of data is likely not 100% sound does not give you licence to do the same, but at least you are documenting your sources in case of later questions, your justifications being irrelevant to a copyright complaint, should one materialise. Which we hope will not happen, but not everyone views things the same way.
.
But is it better to have mapped and been redacted? -
Comment from Adamant1
Morning, although I agree with you about the wasted time replying versus sending them an email to ask, that could be said for a lot of the note conversation on here and I felt that it was something I needed better clarification on from people more knowledgeable then me about this stuff like you and Mateusz Konieczny. Which I have received. So its not time wasted in my belief. Whatever that adds to it.
While I mostly agree with what both of you had said and I agree that official confirmation is normally the way to go. I still think it unrealistic to do that in a lot of instances and following the standard to a tee would make most of the stuff on this map not exist on this map in the first place. Especially in cases of getting business information like phone numbers and hours that can't be gotten through completely legitimate means on any kind of major scale. Which I think is a good case for why this map shouldn't contain that kind of information in the first place then anything. For some reason I was the one that called out for it though and only in this particular instance because I took the time to site the source. Since I wasn't clear if it was OK to use or not. So I felt there was a need to document it just in case. It seems as though most things I am doing lately, sound and good intentioned or not is getting over scrutinized for whatever reason. When most things I get called out on could apply to everyone else and I don't see them getting the treatment. There's a bunch of edits and notes going back years mentioning Googles maps or Google search as a reference, that never get a passing glance from anyone. So I thought maybe I could squeeze one by myself in this single case. Obviously I was wrong though. Ignorance, complicated, badly laid out rules and what other mappers do is no excuse. Things happen. Though, I'm willing to gut the shopping center and delete the whole place if it makes a difference. Its not like that information couldn't easily be found someone else and just put back anyway.I doubt anyone would of came by filed a complaint on it either if I hadn't of cited the source and there wasn't this discussion about it in the first place. That's neither here or there though. And I hope the same flake is given to everyone else.
-
Comment from Adamant1
I just gutted the place. I know it doesn't remove it from the database completely, but at least I did my part to fix my error. Thanks to both of you for bringing it to my attention. Hopefully there is no further issue. A few places I didn't add might of gotten deleted in the process, but that's life I guess. Hopefully someone else can add them back.
Freebeer, in most cases its not better to have mapped and been redacted and it wasn't meant as an excuse. I think in this case it is though because allowed me though learn from my mistake and improve my mapping going forward. I didn't mean it to sound like I think copyright law should be disregarded though. It was just after the fact, Mateusz Konieczny had already been chiding me for things other places, and I just wasn't sure what else to say. I appreciate you calling me out on it though. I definitely could of phrased things better or just not replied until some time had passed and I had put more thought into it. I think your and Mateusz Konieczny critiques are generally correct though. So they are duly noted for future edits.
Ways (8)
- 602775246, v1
- 602775247, v1
- 602775248, v1
- 602775249, v1
- 602775250, v1
- 602775251, v1
- 602398079, v2
- P.F. Chang's China Bistro (602398082), v2
- L'Occitane En Provence (5724409794), v1
- Lush (5724409795), v1
- Brighton Collectibles (5724409796), v1
- 5724409797, v1
- 5724409798, v1
- 5724409799, v1
- 5724409800, v1
- 5724409801, v1
- 5724409802, v1
- 5724409803, v1
- 5724409804, v1
- 5724409805, v1
- 5724409806, v1
- 5724409807, v1
- 5724409808, v1
- 5724409809, v1
- 5724409810, v1
- 5724409811, v1
- 5724409812, v1
- 5724409813, v1
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |