OpenStreetMap
DWG member fizzie has deleted a massive amount of legal and public data from the map
Posted by slice0 on 2 July 2024 in English.EDIT THE CONSENCOUS HAS NOW CHANGED TO SAY THAT THIS DATA IS REMOVED BECAUSE OF A UNDOCUMENTED IMPORT WHICH IS EXACTLY THE REASON I SAID IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED UNDER NOT BECAUSE OF A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION
The names of our beaches is open and public data in Australia, the names of our beaches have been deleted for no reason at all.
this removal was based on a unofficial chat room discussion which is not documented for anybody to see.
the surf life saving club does not own the right to the names of our beaches, however granted the the surf life saving club may not the the most direct source of this information. but we have a full waiver to use this information none-the-less from our government.
there was never a formal proposal about the removal of this information
along with this massive deletion was other information such as boat ramps and beaches drawn in clearly by using imagery.
posting here because my comments keep getting removed by the moderators now.
Discussion
Comment from slice0 on 2 July 2024 at 07:09
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/apparent-use-of-unauthorised-source-for-beach-names-in-australia/108721/26
my reply is this incase it gets removed
I cant even see where the link is between the data that was on the map and the surf live saving club in the first place, what ever the link is it is completely undocumented. This is not the right way to go about a massive deletion like this of public and open data.
This public data has been on OSM for over 2 years, nobody owns the data.
this is open and public data for any use at all.
it is against OSM policy to delete a massive amount of legal data with out proper formalities.
have a look at my post history here to see how much data I have had to save in the past because of users deleting information based on poor understanding and dont even know what is legal and illegal.
I have no trust that people here know what they are doing in the legal sense, the changesets even have “apparently” in the edit which is not conclusive.
Comment from ivanbranco on 2 July 2024 at 07:19
“following my most recent block I have been asked to formally write an apology.
I am sorry and I will change the way I communicate.”
Mh, did you?
Comment from Mateusz Konieczny on 2 July 2024 at 07:54
note that not all legal and public data should be uploaded into OSM
also, as explained at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/apparent-use-of-unauthorised-source-for-beach-names-in-australia/108721 it was NOT legal to mass-upload this data to OSM, at least we have no indicator that it was legal
See osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines
It is inverse, you need a clear proposal to import data
Comment from Mateusz Konieczny on 2 July 2024 at 07:55
which one?
Comment from Mateusz Konieczny on 2 July 2024 at 08:00
Also, I want to express appreciating to DWG for cleaning up this undiscussed import, apparently imported from data source on incompatible license.
Comment from slice0 on 2 July 2024 at 09:38
@Mateusz Konieczny thats exactly what I was thinking the policy it should have been removed under not because some random editors want to role play as copyright lawyers
Comment from slice0 on 2 July 2024 at 09:45
i edited my diary entry
Comment from Friendly_Ghost on 3 July 2024 at 00:34
Could you quit making senseless drama already?
Comment from slice0 on 3 July 2024 at 06:27
how is this allowed osm.org/user/DENelson83/diary/404471 but our beach data is removed due to it being a import, doesnt make sense, its exactly the same thing. non mechanical edits all done in ID.
Comment from silversurfer83 on 3 July 2024 at 07:15
The choice of editor does not say anything about something being a mechanical edit.