Mapper since: May 10, 2009
To MichaelCollinson 6a78b2099a83fcb12de410c09de4d6c1
Subject Re: OpenStreetMap contributions in in and around Essex
Date 19 March 2012 at 18:36
Dear Mr Collinson,
I am still waiting to see a reversion of the changesets (and others besides) that I have informed you about. Cases of vandalism like Liam123 have been reverted in a couple of days. You have been given incontrovertible proof of IPR piracy, so there is no excuse for further delay.
Subject Re: OpenStreetMap contributions in in and around Essex
Date 9 March 2012 at 13:52
Thank you for your prompt reply. I’m sorry to hear you’ve been unwell.
The examples I gave you do not include the Ford Street to Pleshey section of the Essex Way. Some of them relate to paths and features near Brentwood, others relate to the St Peters Way running from Ongar through to the Dengie Peninsula, in a horizontal line far south of the Essex Way.
It is far too charitable to call his actions “careless”. They are clearly part of a concerted armchair-based attempt to rid the OSM Inspector of red (and orange) lines. It’s downright sneaky and dishonest and he knows it.
I would suggest that if he can’t produce a valid GPS trace to cover all of the nodes, POIs, footpaths and bridleways that he’s deleted, that the changesets should be reverted. Given the degree of IPR theft I’ve already demonstrated, I think the onus is on him to prove a legitinate clean sourse, and where he can’t, to revert the changesets involved.
On 2012-03-09 12:18:13 UTC MichaelCollinson wrote:
I made an initial approach to EdLoach before getting your permission to forward your message. He says “If the decliner in question is Qichina and he is concerned by my remapping of the Essex Way, I have walked about 30 miles of it (from Ford Street to Pleshey) so far this year after he didn’t answer any of my attempts to contact him before I started remapping …”. We should be able to reasonably establish this from GPS traces.
Due to ill health I have had to drop a number of issues and have not yet followed up further with him regarding the specific instances. I will do that shortly.
What I need to find out is whether the instances fall into the area he describes. If they do, then he has been careless. I saw that there are specific notes that you made that have clearly been copied across and needed removing (at least). If not, then the change-sets need reverting. He has acknowledged that if he has made mistakes, then that is the right course of action.
Regards, Michael Collinson
On 2012-03-09 11:52:09 UTC Qichina wrote:
It is a fortnight since I wrote to you, and there appears to be no reversion of the illegal edits as requested.
What action are you taking?
On 2012-02-25 08:18:29 UTC MichaelCollinson wrote:
No, I am not aware of this and do not condone it. If anyone chooses not re-license their contributions then that decision must be respected and the value must be removed prior to the license change-over. Remapping, if any, must only done from information provided by other continuing contributors, from clean reference sources and/or direct local knowing and site survey. To do otherwise is improper, unfair and directly defeats the point of the exercise we have asked people to undertake.
I have had a look at some of the examples you provided and cannot, at the moment, see any other conclusion than then one you have reached. My general impression when I originally wrote to you was also that you had made a very valuable contribution that could not be duplicated without putting walking boots on.
May I have your permission to forward the list to EdLoach? I need to give him the chance to make any comment before taking further action and rule out the, albeit unlikely, event of actual site visits.
You also indicate other mappers. If you wish to provide at least one example, I shall be happy to pursue that also.
Regards, Michael Collinson
On 2012-02-24 22:38:54 UTC Qichina wrote:
Dear Mr Collinson
Open Letter to the OSMF
Having chosen not to allow my OSM contributions to be transferred to the new ODbL licence I have had a few emails, including yours, asking me to reconsider. At first I was inclined to reconsider my decision and perhaps allow my contributions under the new ODbl licence, so I took a look at the OSM Inspector to see the extent of my contributions in Essex - largely footpaths. A snapshot of my work - (largely Version 1 contributions) is shown here:
and even this is under-represents the extent of my original mapping in Essex, largely footpaths and bridleways and POI that can only be ascertained by detailed ground surveys.
Since then I see that large chunks of the original work I did from GPS traces have been re-mapped, mainly by EdLoach. As an experienced mapper he knows perfectly well, any re-mapping of “decliners” is only allowed from clean sources – a GPS survey of your own, or from non-copyrighted sources such as Bing imagery or OS OpenData StreetView. However it is perfectly clear to me that there are a significant number of ways where EdLoach has simply deleted large chunks of my work on footpaths and bridleways and replacing it with the same paths, even including details such as the phone number of BT phoneboxes or postcode of roadside post-boxes. These are not derived “From OSM Inspector and Bing imagery” as claimed - the data to map all of these to the degree of accuracy of my original contributions does not exist on satellite pictures. (See examples below)
It is clear that OSM Inspector has been used to to obliterate any history of nodes and ways that were either wholly or substantially the intellectual property of decliners, despite there being no legitimate alternative way of knowing what exists on the ground, so that it will transfer to the new licence uncontested.
I have legal intellectual ownership of this mapping on the basis of “sweat-of-the brow” ownership – quite literally in my case as there are up to 200 miles of footpaths mapped through long slogs through the Essex countryside with a GPS. I have rights over this work under the CC by SA licence, but if I choose, as is my right, to not allow this work to be transferred to a new licence after April – it is not for OSM zealots to cheat that decision by claiming my work as their own.
I know that you know this has been going on, but to my knowledge OSMF are doing nothing to rectify the problem. That’s not acceptable. I’m requesting an immediate reversion of the numerous changesets where it cannot be demonstrated that an original ground survey was taken independently. Other mappers who have declined the new licence have contacted me - including respected German decliners - and have been similarly outraged by the hypocrisy of this sort of copyright theft. I should warn the OSMF that there is talk of a class action legal challenge, and that is something I would consider participating in if I do not find redress.
ORIGINAL Node: 469236243 (Recycling amenity- just some recycling bins which were removed early 2010, but this plagiarist wouldn’t know that because he hasn’t been there.)
Edited at: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:27:19 +0000 Edited by: Qichina Version: 1 In changeset: 2166037 Comment: Childerditch PROW Tags: amenity = recycling
DELETION Node History: 469236243 Deleted at: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:12:04 +0000 Deleted by: EdLoach Version: 2 In changeset: 10631839 Comment: Tweaks based on bing, OS Locator, OS Streetview and OSM Inspector
DUPLICATION as supposedly Version 1 Node History: 1624968249 Edited at: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:11:05 +0000 Edited by: EdLoach Version: 1 In changeset: 10631839 Comment: Tweaks based on bing, OS Locator, OS Streetview and OSM Inspector Tags: amenity = recycling
ORIGINAL Node 469236220 - Viewpoint from bench - unique tagging Edited at:Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:27:18 +0000 Edited by:Qichina Version:1 In changeset:2166037 Comment:Childerditch PROW Tags:amenity = bench note = Thames Estuary, Kent coast, Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Canary Wharf and 02 can be seen on clear day tourism = viewpoint
DELETION: Node History: 469236220 Deleted at:Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:12:04 +0000 Deleted by:EdLoach Version:2 In changeset:10631839 Comment:Tweaks based on bing, OS Locator, OS Streetview and OSM Inspector Coordinates:51.5802124, 0.334921
REPLACED WITH DUPLICATE Node: 1624968053 Edited at:Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:10:58 +0000 Edited by:EdLoach Version:1 In changeset:10631839 Comment:Tweaks based on bing, OS Locator, OS Streetview and OSM Inspector Tags:amenity = bench note = Thames Estuary, Kent coast, Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and Canary Wharf and 02 can be seen on clear day tourism = viewpoint
ORIGINAL Node 469236220 - Postbox with postcode Edited at:Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:27:16 +0000 Edited by:Qichina Version:1 In changeset:2166037 Comment:Childerditch PROW Tags:amenity = post_box ref = CM13 6 source = gps
Edited at:Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:29:51 +0000 Edited by:DrMark Version:2 In changeset:4482620 Comment:More found postbox refs, Grays Tags:amenity = post_box operator = Royal Mail ref = CM13 6 source = gps
DELETION: Node History: 469236143 Deleted at:Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:12:04 +0000 Deleted by:EdLoach Version:3 In changeset:10631839 Comment:Tweaks based on bing, OS Locator, OS Streetview and OSM Inspector
REPLACED WITH DUPLICATE Edited at:Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:11:01 +0000 Edited by:EdLoach Version:1 In changeset:10631839 Comment:Tweaks based on bing, OS Locator, OS Streetview and OSM Inspector Tags:amenity = post_box operator = Royal Mail ref = CM13 6 source = gps
POST BOX WITH POSTCODE (nr phonebox 402895648 also deleted & copied) ORIGINAL Node Added: 402895644 Edited at: Sun, 17 May 2009 15:52:37 +0000 Edited by: Qichina Version: 1 In changeset: 1223370 Comment: Margaretting Tye village added, started St Peter’s Way Tags:
amenity = post_box postcode = CM4 9JX
EDITED Edited at: Sun, 17 May 2009 19:22:16 +0000 Edited by: Qichina Version: 5 In changeset: 1226615 Tags:
amenity = post_box postcode = CM4 9JX
DELETED Deleted at: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:43:50 +0000 Deleted by: EdLoach Version: 7 In changeset: 10494251 Comment: Tweaks based on bing and OSM Inspector
DUPLICATED as Node : 1604972947 Edited at: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:43:04 +0000 Edited by: EdLoach Version: 1 In changeset: 10494251 Comment: Tweaks based on bing and OSM Inspector Tags:
addr:postcode = CM4 9JX amenity = post_box xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ORIGINAL Node: 447931669
Edited at: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:30:10 +0000 Edited by: Qichina Version: 1 In changeset: 1937310 Comment: The Ship, Stock Tags:
amenity = telephone operator = BT payment:credit_cards = yes source = GPS Coordinates:
EDITED Edited at: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:33:12 +0000 Edited by: Qichina Version: 2 In changeset: 1937351 Comment: Telephone box o/s The Ship Tags:
amenity = telephone operator = BT payment:credit_cards = yes ref = 01277 841620 source = GPS Coordinates: 51.6764584, 0.4630832
DELETED: Deleted at: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:46:30 +0000 Deleted by: EdLoach Version: 4 In changeset: 10463775 Comment: Tweaks based on bing and OSM Inspector
DUPLICATED: as Node : 1600977721 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:46:22 +0000 Edited by:EdLoach Version:1 In changeset:10463775 Comment: Tweaks based on bing and OSM Inspector Tags: amenity = telephone operator = BT payment:credit_cards = yes ref = 01277 841620 (Amazing how he can read a Telephone Number inside a phone box from a satellite image!) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FOOTPATHS: There are so many EdLoach changesets in January/February of this year that involve a mixture of authentic source mapping and remapping without a clean source, that I won’t list them all here. Here’s one large changeset as an example: 10576118 Qichina’s Changeset (V1) -1655832 - 28 Jun 2009 (St Peter’s Way: Ongar) many footpaths duplicated in EdLoach Changeset 10576118 under pretext of adding hedges. Qichina’s Changeset - Mon, 25 May 2009 (Essex Way: Willingale to Good Easter) My byway (V2 - extensively edited and corrected from original incorrect classification and node location) has been duplicated with exactly the same (now obsolete) tagging: (ie bicycle = yes comment = Essex Way foot = yes highway = byway horse = yes motorcar = yes name = Peppers Green source = GPS, ) in EdLoach Changeset 10576118 : Essex Way (148587637)
On 2012-01-03 11:20:02 UTC MichaelCollinson wrote:
I hope you don’t mind me getting in touch.
I see you have done some great contributions, (I am also a walker so thank you!), but that you have declined the new contributor terms and that will be mean that we will shortly have to remove them, and perhaps other contributions built on top of them, from the current version of our database.
As chair of the License Working Group, I have some responsibility for this. Is there anything I can clarify or perhaps do for you to say yes, even if you do not wish to continue mapping? I would very much prefer to see your contributions enjoyed by future generations.