Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

ctrl.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 224 posts

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#93

Post by epaulson »

I've always thought OSM's data license should be more BSD-ish than the current LGPLish license. If you were trying to privately build and edit data from OSM, there'd be a pretty strong incentive to get most of your updates and corrections upstreamed back into OSM, (especially for things that are broadly of interest to the rest of the community) because eventually someone will also create those updates in the upstream OSM, and then you'll have to deal with how to merge your changes with the OSM changes.

I think OSM would benefit more with more people building on the dataset, because even if a smaller percentage actually contributed back, they'd make up for it with a larger overall set of people building on the dataset. And I think they'd get a larger set of people building on the dataset with a more permissive license.

(The obvious counterpoint is OSM is doing just fine with its current license)

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#94

Post by chaz6 »

I am happy to contribute for free, but after what happened with Mapillary, I would like a clause that states that should OSM be sold, I would be entitled to a portion of the sale amount commensurate with my contributions, or the option to withhold my contributions from the sale.

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#95

Post by Rygian »

up6w6 wrote: post #92

Can someone give details about what is the best way to contribute? Is there some easy way like just installing an app in my phone and receive popup notifications to answer some quick questions when I'm in a queue of a random local shop?

Yup, you can install Streetcomplete which does exactly that.

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#96

Post by cowsandmilk »

up6w6 wrote: post #92

Can someone give details about what is the best way to contribute? Is there some easy way like just installing an app in my phone and receive popup notifications to answer some quick questions when I'm in a queue of a random local shop?

If you’re on Android: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#98

Post by globular-toast »

> I’m not gonna lie, I kind of like that idea. In the OSM world you just have to have faith that your edits are helping people. There is basically no feedback loop.

Do people really need this? I use OSM whenever I go on a walk anywhere in the world and I often think about the local mappers who maintain the data. I can say with almost complete certainty that someone, somewhere has appreciated my own OSM contributions at some point. That's enough for me.

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#99

Post by Symbiote »

VictorPath wrote: post #36

OpenStreetMap has an "on the ground rule" where a street, a street name, a city, a city name etc. are determined by who currently has control on the ground. So the Malvinas are the Falkland Islands, Derry is Londonderry etc. The sole exception to this is the Crimea, which the OSM board ruled is exempt from this rule, as they favor the Ukrainian government over the Russian government.

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Also, looking at your comment history: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

Re: Should you contribute open data to OpenStreetMap?

#100

Post by pcthrowaway »

nightpool wrote: post #84
pcthrowaway wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the permissive vs. free software license debate. In practice there are people who won't be able to use the data for their use case if a non-permissive license is applied.

> In practice there are people who won't be able to use the data for their use case if a non-permissive license is applied Well, of course. The whole point of a non-permissive license is to.... not permit things. It's frustrating to see people bring this out like some sort of gotcha. I use the AGPL because I think it's important that users have access to the source code the applications they interact with operate on.…

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the data on OSM is covered by their ODbL which is a "share-alike" license. From their FAQ[1]:

    What do you mean by Share-Alike?
    If you publicly use any adapted version of our database, or a partial extraction from it, or works (such as maps) produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL.

    In other words, if you improve our data and then distribute it, you need to share your improvements with the general public at no charge. A painless way to do that is to contribute your improvements directly back to OpenStreetMap.

    Share-Alike only applies if you distribute what you have done to outside people or organisations. You can do what you like at home, or in your school, organisation or company ... the following section does not apply to you.
It's true that people can use their software and data for non-free services built on non-FOSS code, but people using the data publicly do have to distribute modifications to the data-set under the same license

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License

Post reply on HN