OSM is reliable. Rather than using government published data, it uses
crowdsourced data. Most (all?) of creative commons licences allow
modification, so CC doesn't guarantee "protection against alternations".
OSM has been going for almost 15 years. It hasn't turned into junk yet,
what makes you think it'll happen at all? Since it's been going so long,
maybe it's actually doing something right?
On 07/02/2019 12:20, Ulrich Lamm wrote:
There are very different kinds of data, OSM has to use to serve reliable
correct informations itself:
Co-ordinate sets of lines:
In order to map courses of streets and waterways, it is useful but not
necessary, if co-ordinate sets from databases can be imported.
For the localisation of boundaries it may be inevitable, sometimes.
Importing co-ordinate sets cannot fit Creative Commons conditions.
After their integration in the map, their provenience is invisible.
And as every mapper can move every point, their alteration cannot be prevented.
This way, Co-ordinate sets of lines only can be imported under ODbL conditions.
Definitions and background informations:
On the hand, without referenced definitions and naming of geographic objects,
OSM is not reliable.
OSM has established tags for these references, such as source:name, ref:sandre,
ref:gkz.
Many of such informations are available under Creative Commons licensing, as
the providers want to enable free use.
For these kind of data, Creative Commons conditions are first of all a
protection against alterations.
If OSM does not want to be a junk project with a junk product, it has to
distinguish between the geometry, self made or ODbL,
and referenced background informations, fulfilling Creative Commons rules.
Best regards
Ulamm = Ulrich Lamm
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
