OpenStreetMap

[NE2]

What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359

Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.

Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this

Don't worry. Some long-term mappers made the same mistake and still haven't stopped trying to change the rest of the country to conform

[vtk]

What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359

Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.

Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this

Don't worry. Some long-term mappers made the same mistake and still haven't stopped trying to change the rest of the country to conform

That was actually something I pushed for at a time when almost nobody had an idea of what to use "trunk" for in the US.  I've since backed off of that as a strict practice, but I'd say a good guideline is the intercity corridors that have significant freeway or expressway portions should probably be trunk. 

[FightingIrish]

What is this? U.S. 10 is not an expressway through Wadena. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.4454/-95.1359

Trunk doesn't mean expressway any more than primary means four-lane.

Eh, I made a mistake. I'm new at this

Don't worry. Some long-term mappers made the same mistake and still haven't stopped trying to change the rest of the country to conform

That was actually something I pushed for at a time when almost nobody had an idea of what to use "trunk" for in the US.  I've since backed off of that as a strict practice, but I'd say a good guideline is the intercity corridors that have significant freeway or expressway portions should probably be trunk.

Another possible use for Trunk highways is to denote NHS routes. Just a thought.

Wish they'd 'Americanize' the site a bit.

[route56]

Another possible use for Trunk highways is to denote NHS routes. Just a thought.

I have denoted principal arterials (which includes NHS routes) as Trunk in Kansas.

[empirestate]

Another possible use for Trunk highways is to denote NHS routes. Just a thought.

I have denoted principal arterials (which includes NHS routes) as Trunk in Kansas.

Folks seem to use "trunk" for "parkway" in the NYC area, since they render in green.

[mvexel]

Hi all - I'm new here. I've spent a few evenings getting lost in the wealth of road info on AARoads. Quite amazing. I am excited to see so many AARoad members being active OSM contributors as well  , I definitely recognize some of your handles  

I've been tempted to use information found on this site to update OSM on a number of occasions but never have. As you may know, OSM takes copying of information from third party sources very seriously, and without an explicit license or statement of consent, we don't go for it. This is both to respect the intellectual property of others - we as OSM community would want the same respect extended to us by users of OSM data - and to protect the integrity of the liberal OSM data license.

So, my question    are there guidelines for deriving information from the content of AARoads (the pictures, descriptions) and using it to enhance OSM?

Full disclosure: I have a professional interest as well as a personal one. I have been involved with OSM since 2007, am currently the president of the OSM U.S. Chapter, and I work at Telenav where we are looking very actively at using OSM data in our personal navigation products.

Here's the thread on the talk-us mailing list I started a few hours ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-October/012019.html

[Scott5114]

You can't copyright a fact. If I post "Highway 50 is now designated along Patterson Parkway", I cannot claim that as my intellectual property (I can merely claim my word choice, and even that can be tenuous), and it should be OK to use that to change OSM to include that information. Likewise, if I take a picture showing Highway 50 as being designated along Patterson Parkway, it should be OK to use that to change OSM too, as long as you are not outright taking the image and putting it in OSM somehow.

The only thing you wouldn't want to do is take a map that someone created here, trace directly over it, and put the trace in OSM.

[vtk]

The only thing you wouldn't want to do is take a map that someone created here, trace directly over it, and put the trace in OSM.

I think the majority of "map[s] that someone created here" are either fictional, or based on OSM or other "open" sources anyway. Occasionally both.

[mvexel]

You can't copyright a fact. If I post "Highway 50 is now designated along Patterson Parkway", I cannot claim that as my intellectual property (I can merely claim my word choice, and even that can be tenuous), and it should be OK to use that to change OSM to include that information. Likewise, if I take a picture showing Highway 50 as being designated along Patterson Parkway, it should be OK to use that to change OSM too, as long as you are not outright taking the image and putting it in OSM somehow.

Not the fact itself perhaps, but the collection constitutes a database which is protected separately in many jurisdictions - although not in the United States as far as I know. So there may be a legal difference between copying a single statement of fact, and more or less systematically copying information from one collection into another. Does that difference exist and if so, does it apply here?

[english si]

I can't just copy an encyclopedia (even wikipedia), as while you can't copyright a fact, you can copyright how that fact is presented.

[mvexel]

I can't just copy an encyclopedia (even wikipedia), as while you can't copyright a fact, you can copyright how that fact is presented.

Being able to claim copyright to something is not the same thing per se as that thing not being liberally licensed, am I right? So you could have a copyrighted work (like the images on AAroads) that is licensed in a way that allows creating derived works. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

[NE2]

Street signs constitute a database that is protected in many jurisdictions. What gives you the right to copy the information from street signs?

[english si]

Being able to claim copyright to something is not the same thing per se as that thing not being liberally licensed, am I right? So you could have a copyrighted work (like the images on AAroads) that is licensed in a way that allows creating derived works. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

There's fair use derivatives, like satire (fair use is broader in the UK). But also you can allow derivatives, or not - copyright is as flexible as the copyright holder wants it to be.

Flickr, for instance, has several options for uploaders photos: All Rights Reserved, Share Alike, etc.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright explains it well.

The cartography in our map tiles, and our documentation, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC BY-SA). <snip> We require that you use the credit "© OpenStreetMap contributors" .

The data isn't copyright, and derivative works from that (eg MapQuestOpen) is allowed, but the cartography and documentation is copyright and if you share it, you have to not change it, and credit the contributors.

---

SABRE Maps has investigated this kind of stuff (UK law is more tight, eg Government stuff is copyright, though only for 50 years) - scans of out-of-copyright documents are copyright the person/organisation who scanned them, even if owned by someone else (libraries and archives charge for photocopies and often ban cameras to recoup money back), so SABRE (or rather one or two members) visited libraries they hoped to buy scans from as it was pointless if we weren't allowed to publish them online. The National Library of Scotland were rather happy provided that we pay for the scans at the going rate, do all the work to create tiles, attribute the NLS and let them publish those on their mapviewer. Others wanted an annual fee as well, so the SABRE response was "no thanks".

The Mona Lisa is not under copyright, however, a photo of the Mona Lisa is a new work, so is. Thus, the company "Old Ordnance Survey Maps" can copyright their work. It's really annoying when you buy an old map, only to find that it's a reproduction, and thus under copyright for the next 70 years or more. I saw a 1st edition A-Z of London cheap on Amazon and leapt for joy, as that is old enough to be copyright free (or will be soon), but then digging into the description I found that it was a reproduction, not a reprinting, and therefore under copyright for the foreseeable future. 

[NE2]

The above is not accepted by all legal scholars. So don't go removing map scans from your route log or other website just because you didn't physically scan them and contribute to damage of the original.

[Scott5114]

The above also represents UK law–in the US, there was a court ruling called Feist v. Rural that ruled that mere effort doesn't create new copyright. (The lawsuit was between two phone book companies. The court ruled that just because one company did all of the work to compile phone numbers into a book, that didn't give them a copyright claim to the facts of "John Smith = 555-3465", so when the other company grabbed the numbers from the first phone book, they were not infringing copyright.)

[NE2]

The above also represents UK law

The applicability of UK law is also questionable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.#Relevance_to_U.K._law (this is, by the way, a more relevant US court case than Feist v. Rural)

[hotdogPi]

NH 108 in East Kingston seems to have 2 branches (the right one does not exist!)

EDIT: NH 43 is also messed up.

[rickmastfan67]

NH 108 in East Kingston seems to have 2 branches (the right one does not exist!)

EDIT: NH 43 is also messed up.

Provide links to the location of the problem and one of us that edits OSM might be able to fix it.

[hotdogPi]

5 miles northeast of Manchester NH (NH 43), and 5 miles north of Haverhill MA (NH 108).

[rickmastfan67]

5 miles northeast of Manchester NH (NH 43), and 5 miles north of Haverhill MA (NH 108).

That doesn't help people if they don't know the area.  The URL in the address bar updates when you move it around on the main OSM website now, so just post it here so people know exactly where you're talking about.

[hotdogPi]

Check Google for the correct alignments.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/43.1166/-71.2959

Not NH 43

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/43.0721/-71.3055

Exit 3 on NH 101 north on Deerfield Rd. and Old Candia Rd. are NH 43 (and please upgrade to secondary road)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.9021/-71.0269

Only the left branch of NH 108 exists (by the way, Powwow River Road is NH 107A all the way to the Massachusetts border)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/43.0099/-70.9407

Portsmouth Avenue is only NH 33 north of College Rd., the rest is only NH 108

[rickmastfan67]

Check Google for the correct alignments.

You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?

[english si]

Check Google for the correct alignments.

You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?

Though, as has been said many times, you can't copyright facts. Therefore if you leave the cartography alone (as neither fact, nor worth copying!) and use Streetview rather than taking a drive to the location, then it serves as an alternative to physically travelling to a location - if you don't tell anyone, they won't know.

I used it to double check the (weird) house numbering on my street, rather than looking decidedly dodgy walking down every side turn then almost immediately coming back out. It probably took more time (having to try hard to see the numbers as their zoom isn't as good), but I did get to avoid the rain, and the looking like a mad man. I was right anyway working from memory, but I needed the safety blanket of double checking to be sure.

[vtk]

As an alternative to Google, information on numbered routes can be sourced from USGS topo maps – specifically, the older hand-drawn ones, because the new all-digital maps appear to use commercial road data.  The main drawback here is the route information could be years or decades out of date.  All USGS topo maps are available for download here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/MLAD4/?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/z_lat_lon_matnr_list.do?b2cb2b=b2c&store_target=_top

[empirestate]

Check Google for the correct alignments.

You do know that's a no-no for OSM editing, right?

As an alternative to Google, information on numbered routes can be sourced from USGS topo maps – specifically, the older hand-drawn ones, because the new all-digital maps appear to use commercial road data.  The main drawback here is the route information could be years or decades out of date.  All USGS topo maps are available for download here: http://usgs01.srv.mst.edu/MLAD4/?store_url=http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/z_lat_lon_matnr_list.do?b2cb2b=b2c&store_target=_top

Interestingly, now that USGS maps are being crowd-sourced for selected types of data, Google StreetView is now one of the recommended methods for field checking certain facts.