There was already a store in the correct location.

There is already a Peet's Coffee by gate B26.

Thanks for noticing the error. I've removed the culvert tags from the open-air segments.

node/6832994075 is a neighborhood with no name. A name should be added, or the node should be deleted.

way/729354870 is tagged as a park, but it is actually someone's back yard.

This edit added street parking as nodes, tagged with amenity=parking. This tag should only be used for parking lots. Street parking should be mapped as ways, tagged with parking:lane=*.

way/729356891 is drawn as curved, but it is actually a rectangular front lawn. Also, the natural = grassland tag should only be used for wild grasslands, "excluding cultivated areas."

There's something wrong with this import.

In the editors, most of the buildings are showing up as disconnected points. Only some of them are showing up as buildings.

I've tried all three major editors: ID, Potlatch, and JOSM. The same problem shows up in all three editors.

Also, you seem to be worried about conflict of law.

You can only have a conflict of law when there is an actual conflict. For example, if a British college were involved, then the material might be under copyright in Britain, as well as any countries that grant reciprocity to British copyright. The United States may refuse reciprocity under Feist, but that exception would only apply in the United States.

This is not the case here, because the names and addresses of HCCC buildings were "born into the public domain" in the United States. Other countries would then grant reciprocity to the American copyright, which does not exist! Therefore, it's not under copyright anywhere in the world.

You're making this much more complicated than it actually is.

Names and addresses are not copyrightable *at all* in the United States. Feist v. Rural (1991) was very clear that a compilation of facts is "not original" and "not protected" by copyright. Since HCCC is an American college, and it published the information on an American web server, it has released this information into the public domain. The data is now fair game for anyone to use -- American or European.

OSM Contributor Terms, version 1.2.4, paragraph 1(a) states: "Your contribution of data should not infringe the intellectual property rights of anyone else." Notice that it does not say that data cannot be copied, merely that it cannot infringe IP rights. In this case, there are no IP rights, so it is impossible to infringe. If OSM wishes to exclude public-domain names and addresses, then it should revise the Contributor Terms to make this clear.

It is, of course, OSM's prerogative to remove my contributions if they should choose, and then I'll part ways with OSM. However, my contributions are consistent with the Contributor Terms, as currently stated.

You misunderstand. There was no copying of any copyrightable element on the map.

All buildings were traced from the Bing aerial imagery, so they are original work.

Only the names and addresses of the buildings came from HCCC. Names and addresses are not copyrightable in the United States, see Feist v. Rural (1991). This was a *unanimous* decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The law does not get any clearer than this.

In fact, in the United States, names and addresses are not even copyrightable if they were placed on the map for the purpose of discovering copying! See Nester's v. Hagstrom (1992).

In this case, we do not even need the 1992 precedent. You can clearly see that the HCCC map had no addresses and no names -- only letters. Names and addresses came from the building *directory* that follows the map. So just the 1991 case is controlling.

There's a map on Hudson County Community College's website. http://www.hccc.edu/campusmaps/