Talk:Completeness

License issues?!

The wiki page has a #License issues section where it talks about "If we can see that an individual road is missing or wrong, then this starts to feel like copying.". What? There is no "feel", you either copy/trace the data from some source, or you don't. While it is (hopefully) absolutely clear that one is not allowed to copy from sources which did not gave us permission to do so, using comparation tools to see which areas are undermapped in OSM is nothing like copying. If you haven't taken the bits from copyrighted work and put them somewhere else, there is no copying. (see e.g. colour of bits for more in-depth explanation).

That is akin seeing on TV that there was earthquake in Haiti and thus going on HOT to help map OSM data there; and this section currently reads (to me) like "no, TV news programme is copyrighted, so only safe thing to do is to never map Haiti in any way if you've heard about it on TV". It makes no sense. Or like "yes but you've seen that Microsoft Office has some new feature, thus coding that same feature from scratch in Libre Office is forbidden", when in fact it is totally legal.

Copyright protects specific expressions only. One is allowed (e.g. upon using finding out that OSM is underperforming anywhere) to map the same facts by adding missing map data, provided they only copy/trace from allowed data sources (i.e. go collect their own track, or use allowed satellite or streetside imagery etc.). It does not matter where they've got the idea that data is missing. Copyright does not protect general ideas (that is what patents are for, and factual data is unpatentable by its definition), nor facts (although it may protect specific organization of facts, i.e. database rights, but again one is not affected if one does not copy from such database).

• So it is completely allowable to e.g. use Geofabrik Map Compare and compare GoogleMaps to OSM to see that some village is missing or undermapped in OSM, and then proceed to use Bing Maps to trace missing roads, buildings etc.
• What is of course is not allowable is to e.g. use Geofabrik Map Compare to see that some village is missing in OSM, and then proceed to copy/trace data from Google Maps to add it to OSM.

But it has nothing to do with determining completeness of a map; but everything to do with what you do afterwards i.e. from where do you get your data that you will use to add (copy/trace) information to the OSM.

If anyone disagrees with above, please provide more information / links to reputable articles / places where you think contrary is being claimed.

Unfortunately history of this wiki does not mention the author of that section so I'm unable to mention them, it seems that it was copied/extracted from somewhere by @Harry Wood: back in 2010. --mnalis (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No I think that section was written by me back in 2010

There is no "feel", you either copy/trace the data from some source, or you don't. Unfortunately the ways of interpreting copyright law leave plenty of scope for awkward grey areas i.e. having a "feel" for whether you're copying or not. My text explains that but I know it's frustrating we can't say something more solid.

I think it's true what you say about it (probably) being OK to compare with a copyrighted dataset for "determining completeness of a map" in a certain area, but then "what you do afterwards" matters. The problem is that a tool for determining completeness of the map might very well be re-purposed by the mapping community to find specific things to map (the example is a specific individual road missing). Maybe that's ok as a one-off, or as a thing to check with survey/other sources, but the temptation is to scale the use of the tool for this, and get people to do it en masse (temptation, not necessarily for tool creator, but any OSMers viewing the tool). e.g. If you find all the missing roads that google maps knows about and OSM doesn't, then (maybe) you're copying off google maps, even if you use something else to get the road geometry.

I think there's definitely potential to improve the text (especially if any copyright lawyers have some input!) but at the moment it doesn't say anything very solid. Just that use of these comparison tools may be a legal problem.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)