GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

Daniel O'Connor
Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 

Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:


For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:

Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

Alex Sims
Great news,

but we have to wait till February 2016 …

Now, which data set is next on our wishlist?

Alex

On 7 Dec 2015, at 1:20 PM, Daniel O'Connor <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 

Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:


For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:

Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

Warin
In reply to this post by Daniel O'Connor
Those individuals who are concerned should lobby the government NOW. Not
wait for the licence to be declared, nor any requirements made.

On 7/12/2015 1:50 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> Hi all,
> Many of you may be interested in
> https://blog.data.gov.au/news-media/blog/geocoded-national-address-data-be-made-openly-available
>
> Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit
> permission to use said data:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission

The web link in the above ref  (http://data.australia.gov.au) is no
longer valid ...
>
> For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd
> encourage you to have a read of:
> https://www.psma.com.au/sites/default/files/g-naf_product_description.pdf

At the moment if looks like you have to subscribe and then they send you
out the data.

>
> Of interest to us:
>  * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
>  * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points
> though, not polylines)
>  * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better
> accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
>  * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government
> (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is
> plausible)
>
Contains Australia Post boundaries for post codes. Might be used for
suburban name boundaries?


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

Daniel O'Connor


> Those individuals who are concerned should lobby the government NOW. Not wait for the licence to be declared, nor any requirements made.

There is already a commitment for CC-BY-3.0 or better due to http://www.ausgoal.gov.au/creative-commons  and http://data.gov.au/about

Prematurely lobbying the teams who are responsible for this without understanding prior commitments they've made; and without evidence they'll violate those commitments might do more harm than good.


The web link in the above ref  (http://data.australia.gov.au) is no longer valid ...

Irrelevant: data.gov.au and data.australia.gov.au are the same site run by the department of finance, the explicit permission was given in response to an email titled data.gov.au feedback. The older URL was simply retired after the Gov 2.0 taskforce was over and pilot phase was done.

 
At the moment if looks like you have to subscribe and then they send you out the data.

Please read the original announcement carefully. Specifically: "The G-NAF and Administrative Boundaries datasets will be published under an open data licence at no cost to end users on data.gov.au in February 2016."


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Daniel O'Connor

I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition here http://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/

Sorry

Simon

Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 

Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:


For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:

Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)




_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

Jason Ward
Hi Simon,

Could you note the clause for clarity please? My guess would be 3a4 of [1] as I'm not across the meaning of that when applied to the downstream osm licence.  I've read the links below and on a first pass it appears to be quite a broad licence to use (Specifically 2a 1B & 2a 1B) of [1] so am curious to know where the barrier lies.



Thanks!

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 at 20:53 Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:

I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition here http://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/

Sorry


Simon



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

SimonPoole
2a2

Am 30.12.2015 um 12:32 schrieb Jason Ward:
Hi Simon,

Could you note the clause for clarity please? My guess would be 3a4 of [1] as I'm not across the meaning of that when applied to the downstream osm licence.  I've read the links below and on a first pass it appears to be quite a broad licence to use (Specifically 2a 1B & 2a 1B) of [1] so am curious to know where the barrier lies.



Thanks!

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 at 20:53 Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:

I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition here http://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/

Sorry


Simon




_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

Jason Ward
Understood.  For clarity that restriction means the Rights granted in odbl Clause 3.1 [1] are not possible with this data.

I can understand the restriction so I wonder if there is any scope for this to be removed.

I do wonder though, when does Licenced Data become Adapted Material?  I ask as the restriction applies to Licenced Data only.  Probably a question for the Commonwealth solicitors that wrote the EULA.



On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 at 21:39 Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:
2a2


Am 30.12.2015 um 12:32 schrieb Jason Ward:
Hi Simon,

Could you note the clause for clarity please? My guess would be 3a4 of [1] as I'm not across the meaning of that when applied to the downstream osm licence.  I've read the links below and on a first pass it appears to be quite a broad licence to use (Specifically 2a 1B & 2a 1B) of [1] so am curious to know where the barrier lies.



Thanks!

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 at 20:53 Simon Poole <[hidden email][hidden email]> wrote:

I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition here http://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/

Sorry


Simon




_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data to be released under open license

SimonPoole


Am 30.12.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Jason Ward:
Understood.  For clarity that restriction means the Rights granted in odbl Clause 3.1 [1] are not possible with this data.

I can understand the restriction so I wonder if there is any scope for this to be removed.

I do wonder though, when does Licenced Data become Adapted Material?  I ask as the restriction applies to Licenced Data only.  Probably a question for the Commonwealth solicitors that wrote the EULA.

I suspect that the wording of 2a2 is a bit sloppy, and that the "to create" is intended to cover Adapted Material. In any case the way I understand the way this is supposed to work. is that the original IP rights (and the associated licence) continue to exist in a derived work so even if not stated explicitly 2a2 would still apply. Further there are a number of open issues with CC by 4.0 based licences that remain unresolved, see the discussion on legal-talk.in May 2015.

Simon



On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 at 21:39 Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:
2a2


Am 30.12.2015 um 12:32 schrieb Jason Ward:
Hi Simon,

Could you note the clause for clarity please? My guess would be 3a4 of [1] as I'm not across the meaning of that when applied to the downstream osm licence.  I've read the links below and on a first pass it appears to be quite a broad licence to use (Specifically 2a 1B & 2a 1B) of [1] so am curious to know where the barrier lies.



Thanks!

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 at 20:53 Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:

I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition here http://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/

Sorry


Simon





_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GNAF (address) data re-visited

cleary
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six months ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
 
As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM. However the data it is covered by the explicit permission to which Daniel O'Connor referred and which is clearly published in the OSM Wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission. Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
 
Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015, at 08:51 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
 
I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition herehttp://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/.
 
Sorry
 
Simon
 
 
Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 
 
Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:
 
 
For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:
 
Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list

Email had 1 attachment:

  • signature.asc
      1k (application/pgp-signature)
 

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Andrew Harvey-3
On 25 June 2016 at 13:35, cleary <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six months
> ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
>
> As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF
> (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM. However the
> data it is covered by the explicit permission to which Daniel O'Connor
> referred and which is clearly published in the OSM Wiki at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission.
> Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
>
> Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.

This isn't the only issue, but at a minimum there is an extra clause
in the GNAF license [1]

>The EULA terms are based on the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). However, an important restriction relating to the use of the open G-NAF for the sending of mail has been added.
>The open G-NAF data must not be used for the generation of an address or the compilation of an address for the sending of mail unless the user has verified that each address to be used for the sending of mail is capable of receiving mail by reference to a secondary source of information. Further information on this use restriction is available here.

I don't think the permission you point to waives this requirement.
Hence it's incompatible with being imported into OSM.

[1] https://data.gov.au/dataset/geocoded-national-address-file-g-naf

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Alex Sims
Hmmm,

If I just delivered mail to particular addresses (as I did to 150 today, have a list of addresses) does that mean that these addresses are now able to be imported from the GNAF?

Maybe I need to tag them as note:letterbox verified or note:GNAF import ok?

I’m not being flippant, and I think it might be a reasonably efficient method of getting addresses in - verify letterbox, import from GNAF which gives me a lat, long done. I think is quicker than trace outline, print out map, survey using map marking addresses down.

Alex


On 25 Jun 2016, at 5:02 PM, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

This isn't the only issue, but at a minimum there is an extra clause
in the GNAF license [1]

The EULA terms are based on the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). However, an important restriction relating to the use of the open G-NAF for the sending of mail has been added.
The open G-NAF data must not be used for the generation of an address or the compilation of an address for the sending of mail unless the user has verified that each address to be used for the sending of mail is capable of receiving mail by reference to a secondary source of information. Further information on this use restriction is available here.



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by cleary

The simple answer is "NO", the G-NAF data is published under a non-open custom licence and currently can not be used directly in OSM.

Every communication we've had with the relevant authorities has indicated that they are at this time not moving away from the non-open licence. This may change in the future, but hasn't at this point in time.

Using it for QA etc. is likely possible, but given the low number of addresses we have in Australia to start with is likely not going to help a lot.

Simon

Am 25.06.2016 um 05:35 schrieb cleary:
I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six months ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
 
As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM. However the data it is covered by the explicit permission to which Daniel O'Connor referred and which is clearly published in the OSM Wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission. Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
 
Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015, at 08:51 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
 
I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition herehttp://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/.
 
Sorry
 
Simon
 
 
Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 
 
Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:
 
 
For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:
 
Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list

Email had 1 attachment:

  • signature.asc
      1k (application/pgp-signature)
 


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

cleary
 
Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand.  Can I now follow-on and request clarification about other data from data.gov.au - for example the sources listed in the wiki for Queensland Local Government Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality Boundaries which are CC-BY-4.0 but do not have restrictions such as the mailout condition in GNAF address data.  Is it safe for me to add data from these Queensland administrative boundary data sources? 
 
I'm sorry to be a nuisance about the legality of our sources but I struggle with some of the nuances and I don't want to create problems that need to be sorted out at a later date.
 
 
 
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016, at 01:09 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

The simple answer is "NO", the G-NAF data is published under a non-open custom licence and currently can not be used directly in OSM.

Every communication we've had with the relevant authorities has indicated that they are at this time not moving away from the non-open licence. This may change in the future, but hasn't at this point in time.

Using it for QA etc. is likely possible, but given the low number of addresses we have in Australia to start with is likely not going to help a lot.

Simon

Am 25.06.2016 um 05:35 schrieb cleary:
I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six months ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
 
As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM. However the data it is covered by the explicit permission to which Daniel O'Connor referred and which is clearly published in the OSM Wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission. Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
 
Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015, at 08:51 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
 
I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition herehttp://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/.
 
Sorry
 
Simon
 
 
Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 
 
Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:
 
 
For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:
 
Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list

Email had 1 attachment:

  • signature.asc
      1k (application/pgp-signature)
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

 
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list

Email had 1 attachment:

  • signature.asc
      1k (application/pgp-signature)
 

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Warin
On 6/26/2016 10:11 AM, cleary wrote:
 
Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand.  Can I now follow-on and request clarification about other data from data.gov.au - for example the sources listed in the wiki for Queensland Local Government Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality Boundaries which are CC-BY-4.0 but do not have restrictions such as the mailout condition in GNAF address data.  Is it safe for me to add data from these Queensland administrative boundary data sources? 
 
I'm sorry to be a nuisance about the legality of our sources but I struggle with some of the nuances and I don't want to create problems that need to be sorted out at a later date.

I too find legalese to be less than interesting.
There is a good deal of address data in NSW LPI base map... but it looks to me that it has to be manually entered so very labour intensive. My present thinking is it would be nice to have the start and end address house numbers for the business areas of cities/towns. But I already am dragging the chain in a few areas .. post offices and libraries from the LPI for instance. Then there is camp sites, tourist information offices..

 
 
 
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016, at 01:09 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

The simple answer is "NO", the G-NAF data is published under a non-open custom licence and currently can not be used directly in OSM.

Every communication we've had with the relevant authorities has indicated that they are at this time not moving away from the non-open licence. This may change in the future, but hasn't at this point in time.

Using it for QA etc. is likely possible, but given the low number of addresses we have in Australia to start with is likely not going to help a lot.

Simon

Am 25.06.2016 um 05:35 schrieb cleary:
I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six months ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
 
As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM. However the data it is covered by the explicit permission to which Daniel O'Connor referred and which is clearly published in the OSM Wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission. Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
 
Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015, at 08:51 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
 
I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet the definition herehttp://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/.
 
Sorry
 
Simon
 
 
Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
Hi all,
Many of you may be interested in 
 
Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have explicit permission to use said data:
 
 
For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd encourage you to have a read of:
 
Of interest to us:
 * Address points with geocoding and full structured address information
 * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding (points though, not polylines)
 * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
 * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction from survey is plausible)
 
 
 
 



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Andrew Harvey-3
On 26 June 2016 at 13:36, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>But I already am dragging the chain
> in a few areas .. post offices and libraries from the LPI for instance. Then
> there is camp sites, tourist information offices..

In my opinion be careful with that as some of that data is either
wrong or outdated based on a ground survey.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by cleary
On 26 June 2016 at 10:11, cleary <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand.  Can I
> now follow-on and request clarification about other data from data.gov.au -
> for example the sources listed in the wiki for Queensland Local Government
> Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality Boundaries which are CC-BY-4.0 but do not have
> restrictions such as the mailout condition in GNAF address data.  Is it safe
> for me to add data from these Queensland administrative boundary data
> sources?
>
> I'm sorry to be a nuisance about the legality of our sources but I struggle
> with some of the nuances and I don't want to create problems that need to be
> sorted out at a later date.

Are you refering to the PSMA Admin Boundaries Data?
https://data.gov.au/dataset/psma-administrative-boundaries

Referring to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

CC-BY-4.0 isn't compatible with the requirements for including data
into OSM as it stands, but if the rights holder(s) explicitly states
in writing that credit on the Contributors page is sufficient to
fulfill attribution requirements including downstream use in works
derived from OSM, then it can be included. Honestly I'm not sure if
this is covered by
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission,
and I'm not sure if the "Users must only use the data in ways that are
consistent with the Australian Privacy Principles issued under the
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).", the latter did come up when including in
GNAF in OpenAddresses.io I think.  Maybe best to ask on the legal-talk
list?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Warin
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3
On 6/27/2016 10:00 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On 26 June 2016 at 13:36, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> But I already am dragging the chain
>> in a few areas .. post offices and libraries from the LPI for instance. Then
>> there is camp sites, tourist information offices..
> In my opinion be careful with that as some of that data is either
> wrong or outdated based on a ground survey.
>

Hence it is taking some time.... and I find checking fairly boring :)

I have found one Post Office that is outdated in OSM and correct in LPI ... so it works both ways.

I have added embassies and hospitals from the LPI data ... found a few embassies (2 or 3?) that were outdated in LPI.


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

Andrew Davidson-3
In reply to this post by cleary
If you are going to bring in any more administrative boundaries can we
please do them as a formal import. If there was one thing that I learnt
from the experience of doing the NSW ones is that bringing them in
manually is a massive PITA.

On 26/06/16 10:11, cleary wrote:

> Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand.
> Can I now follow-on and request clarification about other data from
> data.gov.au - for example the sources listed in the wiki for
> Queensland Local Government Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality Boundaries
> which are CC-BY-4.0 but do not have restrictions such as the mailout
> condition in GNAF address data.  Is it safe for me to add data from
> these Queensland administrative boundary data sources?
> I'm sorry to be a nuisance about the legality of our sources but I
> struggle with some of the nuances and I don't want to create problems
> that need to be sorted out at a later date.
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016, at 01:09 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>> The simple answer is "NO", the G-NAF data is published under a
>> non-open custom licence and currently can not be used directly in OSM.
>>
>> Every communication we've had with the relevant authorities has
>> indicated that they are at this time not moving away from the
>> non-open licence. This may change in the future, but hasn't at this
>> point in time.
>>
>> Using it for QA etc. is likely possible, but given the low number of
>> addresses we have in Australia to start with is likely not going to
>> help a lot.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Am 25.06.2016 um 05:35 schrieb cleary:
>>> I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six
>>> months ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
>>>
>>> As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF
>>> (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM.
>>> However the data it is covered by the explicit permission to which
>>> Daniel O'Connor referred and which is clearly published in the OSM
>>> Wiki at
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission.
>>> Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
>>>
>>> Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015, at 08:51 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is
>>>> based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily
>>>> contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data
>>>> clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere
>>>> to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet
>>>> the definition herehttp://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> Many of you may be interested in
>>>>> https://blog.data.gov.au/news-media/blog/geocoded-national-address-data-be-made-openly-available
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have
>>>>> explicit permission to use said data:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
>>>>>
>>>>> For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd
>>>>> encourage you to have a read of:
>>>>> https://www.psma.com.au/sites/default/files/g-naf_product_description.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Of interest to us:
>>>>>  * Address points with geocoding and full structured address
>>>>> information
>>>>>  * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding
>>>>> (points though, not polylines)
>>>>>  * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of
>>>>> better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
>>>>>  * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state
>>>>> government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction
>>>>> from survey is plausible)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________
>>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>>
>>>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>>>
>>>>  *
>>>>     |signature.asc|
>>>>       1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> _________________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>> Email had 1 attachment:
>>
>>  *
>>     |signature.asc|
>>       1k (application/pgp-signature)
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GNAF (address) data re-visited

cleary

After brief discussion on legal-talk, I have sent an email to the
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet requesting explicit permission
for OSM to use the PSMA Administrative Boundaries and I included
concerns raised within legal-talk.  I have had an informal phone call
which acknowledged receipt of the request. Apparently they are already
considering a request  regarding OSM access to the GNAF (address) data
and legal advice is being obtained  about that too.  

In regard to the suggestion that , if we get approval, then there should
be a formal import of whole datasets :  I do not have the skill to do
that and it would require someone else to undertake it. However, it
seems to me that such large scale imports create as many, or perhaps
more, problems that they solve.  A single way can be part of multiple
boundaries - the most I have yet encountered is part of the
NSW/Victorian boundary with a single way forming part of ten separate
relations (State boundary, LGA boundary, locality boundary and national
park boundary on NSW side with six on the Victorian side - the
equivalent  four plus two additional which I think were political
boundaries but I am unsure).  I am not very knowledgeable about this, so
perhaps I am mistaken, but it appears that mass imports would bring
multiple multipolygons all overlaid one on top of the other,  and would
not necessarily create relations for the boundaries. Many layers of
lines along the same co-ordinates creates an editing problem where
modification is required to the way for one of the multipolygons. Manual
imports are slower to achieve but it seems to me that they are better in
the long term. Nevertheless I am happy to accept the view of colleagues
in this list if others also favour formal mass import (and presuming we
get the permission that has been requested).




On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, at 08:46 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote:

> If you are going to bring in any more administrative boundaries can we
> please do them as a formal import. If there was one thing that I learnt
> from the experience of doing the NSW ones is that bringing them in
> manually is a massive PITA.
>
> On 26/06/16 10:11, cleary wrote:
> > Thanks to Simon and Andrew for your responses which I now understand.
> > Can I now follow-on and request clarification about other data from
> > data.gov.au - for example the sources listed in the wiki for
> > Queensland Local Government Areas and QLD Suburb/Locality Boundaries
> > which are CC-BY-4.0 but do not have restrictions such as the mailout
> > condition in GNAF address data.  Is it safe for me to add data from
> > these Queensland administrative boundary data sources?
> > I'm sorry to be a nuisance about the legality of our sources but I
> > struggle with some of the nuances and I don't want to create problems
> > that need to be sorted out at a later date.
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016, at 01:09 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
> >>
> >> The simple answer is "NO", the G-NAF data is published under a
> >> non-open custom licence and currently can not be used directly in OSM.
> >>
> >> Every communication we've had with the relevant authorities has
> >> indicated that they are at this time not moving away from the
> >> non-open licence. This may change in the future, but hasn't at this
> >> point in time.
> >>
> >> Using it for QA etc. is likely possible, but given the low number of
> >> addresses we have in Australia to start with is likely not going to
> >> help a lot.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> Am 25.06.2016 um 05:35 schrieb cleary:
> >>> I'm sorry that I'm slow in picking up an old thread from about six
> >>> months ago but I remain uncertain about the implications.
> >>>
> >>> As I understand the situation, the licence that accompanies the GNAF
> >>> (address) data from data.gov.au is not itself adequate for OSM.
> >>> However the data it is covered by the explicit permission to which
> >>> Daniel O'Connor referred and which is clearly published in the OSM
> >>> Wiki at
> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission.
> >>> Therefore it seems we are able to use the GNAF (address) data in OSM.
> >>>
> >>> Please correct me if I have misunderstood the issues in this discussion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015, at 08:51 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I just had a quick look at the licence terms. While the license is
> >>>> based on CC by 4.0 (which is own can of worms) it unluckily
> >>>> contains a provision prohibiting specific use that makes the data
> >>>> clearly (as in we will never, in no circumstances be able to adhere
> >>>> to the terms) unusable for OSM and further means it does not meet
> >>>> the definition herehttp://opendefinition.org/od/1.0/en/.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry
> >>>>
> >>>> Simon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 07.12.2015 um 03:50 schrieb Daniel O'Connor:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>> Many of you may be interested in
> >>>>> https://blog.data.gov.au/news-media/blog/geocoded-national-address-data-be-made-openly-available
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Provided the license is CC-BY-3.0 or better; we already have
> >>>>> explicit permission to use said data:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For those of you interested in what specific data this is, I'd
> >>>>> encourage you to have a read of:
> >>>>> https://www.psma.com.au/sites/default/files/g-naf_product_description.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of interest to us:
> >>>>>  * Address points with geocoding and full structured address
> >>>>> information
> >>>>>  * Authoritive street names for a given suburb, with geocoding
> >>>>> (points though, not polylines)
> >>>>>  * Authoritative suburb/locality points, geocoded - likely of
> >>>>> better accuracy than ABS "Statistic Suburb" data.
> >>>>>  * Data refreshed quarterly; sourced from local and state
> >>>>> government (so emailing your council to submit a data correction
> >>>>> from survey is plausible)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Talk-au mailing list
> >>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _________________________________________________
> >>>> Talk-au mailing list
> >>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>>>
> >>>> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>>>
> >>>>  *
> >>>>     |signature.asc|
> >>>>       1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Talk-au mailing list
> >>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>>
> >> _________________________________________________
> >> Talk-au mailing list
> >> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >>
> >> Email had 1 attachment:
> >>
> >>  *
> >>     |signature.asc|
> >>       1k (application/pgp-signature)
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au