Hallo, danke für den Beitrag zu OenStreetMap!

Mir sind zwei kleine Dinge aufgefallen:
1. Bitte keine Namen von Anwohnern eingeben. Solange das Haus also nicht "Heinz Brüggemann" heißt, das nicht als name= eingeben.
2. Die Autolackiererei hast Du als Autoreperatur eingetragen. Ist das so gewollt, oder war das ein Fehler?

Bitte um Antwort, damit ich es ggf. korrigieren kann.

LG
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145871737

Servus, falls Dir Informationen nicht vorliegen, brauchst Du sie nicht mit "?" taggen; einfach ganz weglassen.

Im Zweifelsfall kannst du eine Notiz hinterlassen, entweder als tag "note=Hausnummer ?" oder über die klassischen OSM-Hinweise.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145849642

[I could understand it, if you would be frustrated, but hope that you are not mad at me. If you think that I should have done/communicated something differently, please tell me, so I can try to change it next time.]

Ah, sorry for misunderstanding, my bad.

It depends; you are allowed to link other stuff, e.g. images, websites and so forth. As far as I know, you are not allowed to use external databases as sources for object outlines, names, addresses,... unless they are compatible.

So my understanding would be this:
Linking from OSM to somewhere for additional info (even if it is copyrighted): Ok
Getting opening hours from a business website: Ok
Getting opening hours or names from Google Maps: Not Ok

The way I understood you is, that you got the name (but not the outline?) from Google Earth. Is this correct?

We will see what the DWG will say about this, I emailed them an hour ago, this may take some time. Maybe I'm wrong; in that case, I am very sorry for all the trouble.

If you wish to discuss this further, or ask others of their opinion, we could make a thread on the OSM forum about this.

(I might map some in this area, but will definitely not delete anything related to this, until there is a decision.)

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Wikipedia has an open license, but cannot be used in OSM. See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/. This applies to WIkimedia Commons images as well. (Unless the authors explicitly waive their rights).

A lot of government data is not compatible as well with OSM (due to various legal issues like attribution, future license changes, etc.).

E.g. in Germany, we have very high resolution imagery, which we are not allowed to use for OSM, even though we are allowed to download them and share them.
A lot of public data is not compatible with the OSM license (the so-called ODbL).

With respect to the topic at hand: I have asked them and the Data Working Group said that they will have to redact that edit from the database, for legal reasons. I have already contacted one of them and will refer this to him.

Afterwards we (I can do it, but if you want to do it, that is fine as well) can add the area again, this thime from proper (i.e. legal) sources.

On that occasion I will ask whether fas.scot is a legal source.

Best regards!

Another question: Have you used Google Maps/Earth in the past for other changes? If yes, tjose would nees to be reviewed as well.

Again, sorry, I hate it as well, but it would be dangerous for OSM to use any copyrighted material.

Well, the problem is: That might not be allowed as well. There is no license mentioned. As long as we are not explicitly allowed to use it, we cannot use it(except for a few cases). Too dangerous to get sued. :'(

I'll have a look at it later.

Here in English: osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data? and here in Polish: osm.wiki/Pl:Cz%C4%99sto_zadawane_pytania#Dlaczego_nie_u%C5%BCywacie_Google_Maps_lub_czego%C5%9B_w_tym_rodzaju_do_robienia_waszych_map?

Note that the English version explicitly lists Google Earth as well.

Thank you for your response! :)
I don't want to be annoying, but using Google Earth is not allowed as any source of information (be it names or aerial images). So if you got the name and stuff from there, we will have to revert this part of the edit. If you just added the url tag and did not get any information from Google Earth, then that is fine.

Again, sorry for being annoying and happy mapping :-)

Hello Pawcio,
in this CS you added the Mountain WOodland (osm.org/way/979811746) and added a Google Earth URL to it. Did you copy the outline from there, or why did you add it? On the Google Earth imagery, I see an outline of the area and the satellite pictures.

The name does not show up on any OS Survey Maps. Did you get it from Google Earth as well?

What exactly did you mean with "trail_visibility=none"? That there is no visible trail?

Ooops, I named the bays '#', I fixed it now.

Okay. As a wildcamper myself, I didn't want to delete the data, so I only deleted the tourism=camp_site and added a note and a description. (See osm.org/changeset/145679400 , if you are interested.)

Alles gut, kein Thema. Danke fuer's Entfernen :-)

Aberes ist doch klar und deutlich im Verlauf zu sehen, dass du der (gesamten) Waldstraße die Hausnr. 5 gegeben hast. Nicht den Gebaeuden, sondern der Straße. Oder bin ich verpeilt?

Sure, no problem. Sorry for my brevity, I was just scrolling through OSMCha and I've seen all kinds of stuff.

While we're at it: What about those villages named "Flood affected area"? That feels like an abuse of the name tag. Surely there is a dedicated tag for that, right?

This one: osm.org/node/8622875467

The campsite on Montana Blanca, is it confirmed? I was up there seeral times and while one could hypothetically camp there (illegally?), there is definitely no managed campsite.

Is it legal to camp there, or not? If not, we should definitely say so.

Please, do not use all CAPS adding the name, except if it is in fact the proper orthography. If it is not, please change it.

Da fehlt ein building=yes. Gerne noch mit disused:building=church (siehe osm.wiki/DE:Lebenszyklus-Pr%C3%A4fix).