Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2024-03-04

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
4 March 2024, 18:00 UTC

Participants

• Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
• Dermot McNally
• Jim Vidano
• Tom Hummel
• Tom Lee
• Guillaume Rischard (joined 27’ after start, OSMF board)

Absent

• Simon Hughes

Administrative

Adoption of past minutes

• 2024-02-12 Approved

Previous action items

• 2018-03-08 All to look at the Working Groups collecting personal information.
• 2018-04-12 LWG to follow-up on the iD editor, as the number of changesets is now included on the changeset comments thread.
• 2020-10-08 Simon Poole and Guillaume Rischard to look at the translation issue of the copyright policy page
• 2020-10-08 Jim Vidano to work on updating the privacy policy in relation to OSMF's use of a commercial CDN, and Kathleen Lu will have a look at it.
• 2021-02-11 Kathleen Lu to check LWG-specific membership requirements on the OSMF website and Conflict of Interest policy and provide to Dorothea any updates for the website.
• 2021-03-11 Guillaume Rischard to sort out various email issues - Making sure Dermot McNally is on the main legal mailing issue, making sure everyone is getting OTRS email notifications for the legal queue.
• 2021-07-08 Guillaume Rischard to meet with Dermot McNally about using OTRS.
• 2021-07-08 LWG members to provide comment on the HOT draft trademark agreement on the next meeting.
• 2021-07-08 Jim Vidano to look at next steps for Opensnowmap.org paperwork after the trademark request has been approved by the board.
• 2021-07-08 Dermot McNally to ask Tobias for expected outcome regarding the request for change of the text of the standard tile license.
• 2021-08-12 Tom Hummel to suggest text to be published regarding OSMF's legitimate interest in processing personal data.
• 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to reply to Tobias about simplifying the text of the tile licence.
• 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to make the pull request on GitHub openstreemap-website regarding attribution requirements for OSMF tiles
• 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to communicate back to contacts regarding Australian data attribution and suggest filling the waiver template.
• 2021-08-12 LWG to identify OSMF legal texts that might be needed under German law to be in German.
• 2021-09-09 Jim Vidano to ask Simon Poole whether he has previous emails contacting companies that were not displaying attribution.
• 2021-09-09 Guillaume Rischard to check past emails (e.g. last year ones related to case in Germany where they settled in court) for any sent to companies not complying with attribution requirements and to send what he finds, including links to the GitHub repositories with the lists of not complying organisations, to the Signal group.
• 2021-09-09 Jim Vidano and Dermot McNally (2021-12-09) to create a draft template email for the community to contact organisations regarding non compliance with the attribution guidelines
• 2021-09-09 Dermot McNally to reply to Jean-Marc Liotier (board of directors) with the LWG decision to create a template email for minor cases of non-compliance with the attribution guidelines available to the community and the LWG to directly contact bigger companies.
• 2022-01-13 Simon Hughes to download a copy of the Copyright FAQ page and mark anything that is not matching the attribution guidelines or is confusing and circulate that to the LWG.
• 2022-04-14 Guillaume Rischard to ask Tom Hughes to see how many translations of the Copyright and Copyright FAQ page are live. Topic Needed: Update to Copyright FAQ page to match new attribution guidelines
• 2022-09-15 Dermot McNally to send an email to the companies mentioned on Ticket#2022011910000082 and Ticket#202201261000014
• 2022-09-15 Guillaume Rischard to respond to the email Ticket#202208041000024 and redirect to the right person.
• 2022-10-13 Guillaume Rischard to take the Ticket#2022100310000013 issue to the board (related to legal consequences for “unlicensed surveying”)
• 2022-11-10 Guillaume Rischard to pass the message to the board member who wrote to the LWG about Open Database License (ODbL).
• 2023-03-06 Kathleen Lu to write back to Iiro Laiho (Inquiry re Finnish satellite imagery) and have them clarify that the attribution is ok. The LWG to update the attribution.
• 2023-04-03 Guillaume Rischard to ask Grant Slater regarding passing LWG tickets to OWG.
• 2023-04-03 Dermot McNally to find wording that makes it clear to the recipients of the love letters that the letters come from mappers.
• 2023-04-03 Guillaume Rischard to send the Attribution Guidelines (Case of German Federal Mapping Agency buried attribution)
• 2023-04-03 Tom Lee to reply to the OSM Serbia community on GitHub asking for additional details (Ticket#2023030810000178 - Serbian Geodata)
• 2023-04-03 Dermot McNally to put Benito Romualdo Palma Temoaya in touch with the Mexican community (Ticket#2023032410000272 – Asesoría)
• 2023-11-13 Tom Lee to create a draft statement by the next LWG meeting that could be used by the board to encourage governments to publish under CC0, ODbL, OGL or with a waiver to OSM. [Topic: Ordnance Survey Ireland waiver - Update by Dermot McNally]
• 2023-11-13 Tom Hummel to read https://open.nrw/system/files/media/document/file/opennrw_rechtl_gutachten_datenlizenzen_lowres_web.pdf https://open.nrw/verwendung-von-open-data-lizenzen [Topic: Ticket#2023110610000184 - Importing Austrian governmental data]m to add to add the following two templat
• 2023-11-13 Tom Hummel to contact Falk, a lawyer from the German local chapter, and get his opinion on the general stance of mid-level governmental agencies. Estimated to have a response by early December. [Topic: Ticket#2023110610000184 - Importing Austrian governmental data]
• 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to contact Lawdit and enquire about the cost estimate for opposing the trademark registration by UMBRAOSM.
• 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to reply to Kirill Fedotov that the new MapBuilder designs for OSM account sign-ups look good.
• 2024-01-08 Tom Hummel to reply to the last email about rescheduling the meeting regarding the Austrian governmental datasets , cc Dermot McNally and try to schedule a new date.
• 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to reply to the reporter that, per horizontal layers, what was done with the Organic Maps feature related to https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/pull/6523/commits/51b3fc992e66e49b4c9a77e3d3fb05d99027baf5 is fine for data about hotel booking, and enquire about further concerns.
• 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to contact OWG regarding Matomo tracking (Q5: is there a delay after which old IP addresses are anonymised and Q6: For how long is Matomo tracking information retained by OSMF). LWG to answer questions one to four, providing the reasoning.
• 2024-01-08 Kathleen Lu to forward this request for permission to use the OSM trademarks on the domains: osm.tips, osmtips.de, osmtips.eu, osmtips.org, osmtips.com to the board.
• 2024-01-08 Guillaume Rischard to send an attribution love letter to OpenGeoHub, regarding OpenLandMap.
• 2024-01-08 Guillaume Rischard to talk with Tom Hummel, before the latter talks to Falke.
• 2024-01-08 Guillaume Rischard to provide a summary regarding the German federal cartography agency issue at the next meeting.
• 2024-02-12 Guillaume Rischard to ask UMBRAOSM for a copy of their filling change request. [UMBRAOSM UNIÃO DOS MAPEADORES BRASILEIROS DO OPENSTREETMAP]
• 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to email OSMtips and send them the template for project and domain grandfathering applications. [Topic: 2)OSM.tips and related domains]
• 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to email OpenLandCover and suggest template https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Project_Licence_and_Domain_Grandfathering_Application [Topic: 3)Query from Mateusz re OpenLandCoverMap]
• 2024-02-12 Simon Hughes to provide the difference in number of POIs between the old and new datasets provided by Geolytica to TomTom. [Topic: Geolytica]
• 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu and Tom Hummel to talk with Sarah. [Topic: OSMF transfer plan scope of work quote from law firm]
• 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to write back to EWG to ask for clarifications. [Topic: EWG enquiry about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GDPR/Affected_Services update]
• 2024-02-12 Jim Vidano to contact the website with an attribution love letter https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Reminder_Templates [Topic: Ticket#2024011610000011]
• 2024-02-12 Kathleen Lu to write back to inquirer that we will add to the copyright page, and that they should notify the Danish data authority that they will be represented on the /copyright alongside all our other prominent sources (there not being anything listed on the front page). Or you can get a CC waiver. Also cc Tom Lee [Ticket#2024020610000298]
• 2024-02-12 Tom Lee to reply [Topic: application for forward geocoding addresses in Germany]
• 2024-02-12 Dorothea Kazazi to create a board action item and assign it to Guillaume. (Done: https://gitlab.com/osmfoundation/board-action-items/-/issues/117)

---

Any updates on reported attribution cases?

Reports in OTRS:

• Ticket#2021081210000057 printed maps with false copyright
• Ticket#2022011910000082 interparcel.com: Dermot Emailed them on 10th Nov, no reply
• Ticket#2022012610000149 https://poster.printmijnstad.nl/editor/city
• Ticket#2022033010000217
  • complaint that Aberdeen city council may not be attributing correctly – https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/news/consultation-starts-street-improvements-ashgrove-road
  • Note that Aberdeen credits Ordnance Survey, so possible OS is using OSM as one of many sources and the full attribution is not getting carried through
• Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop
  • Hermes UK changed name to evri. So this is an old issue.
• Ticket#2022062610000078 -
  • Härryda, Sweden, uses OpenStreetMap for an app they developed. Inside the app there are no license references to OSM.
  • You can see the app on the Google Apps store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=se.harryda.medborgar.app&gl=US
• Ticket#2021120810000146 mondialrelay.fr not attributing correctly
• Ticket#2022120510000177 — Club Vosgien complaint – any reply?

---

---

Geolytica

Initial email to LWG Sorry if this ruins anyones Sunday.

My employer buys POI data from Geolytica. I took a look at it yesterday. It's full of OSM data, I've attached a small sample, grepped for "local knowledge". I noticed because "Source_URL" is basically a one to one copy of OSM. I can provide the full dataset if required, but this is probably the biggest ODBL violation ever. I have no idea how many Geolytica customers there are.

https://poidata.xyz/

Previous LWG discussions: 2024-02-12, 2024-01-08, 2023-12-11, 2023-10-16, 2023-09-11, 2023-10-16, 2023-11-13

TomTom’s investigation update

Report from Simon – New “OSM-free” dataset provided by Geolytica to TomTom has removed 3 million POIs, compared to the previous one.

---

Meeting with Brigitte Lutz/Austrian gov and OSMF Austria Local Chapter - Ticket#2023110610000184 related 

Background. Related to: Importing Austrian governmental data Related to the action item "Kathleen to email that German-speaking LWG members are happy to have a conversation with Brigette and discuss compatibility." and the issue of importing Austrian governmental data, raised by Markus Mayr (emails below).

Emails provided by LWG. Bold as in the initial email.

Dear Roland!
Dear OSM-LWG!

(I'm writing in English since I'm unsure if the recipients of "legal-questions@osmfoundation.org" can understand German.)

Thank you for reaching out! I as the chairman of OpenStreetMap Austria as well as other members of the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association are excited by your proposal.

First I want to explain the organisational structure of OpenStreetMap, our point of view and also our limits:

OpenStreetMap is an NGO registered in the UK. It is administered by the "OpenStreetMap Foundation" (https://osmfoundation.org). There are multiple so-called "Local Chapters" of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in various countries of the world which serve as a point of contact. These local chapters are independent associations which have signed a memorandum of understanding with the OpenStreetMap Foundation. OpenStreetMap Austria ("OSM-AT") is the local chapter for Austria. Each local chapter performs activities on their own to support the OpenStreetMap, which have to be in accordance to the rules of the OpenStreetMap.

The problem at hand

The problem for the inconsistencies of the licenses are twofold:

• It is not 100% clear if the attribution of a single data provider as it is done by OpenStreetMap (mentioning the data provider on a collective wiki-page) is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the "BY" attribution. It might be, or might not be, so the recommendation is to play it safe and directly ask the data provider. This usually is no problem.
• But the second point, which you mentioned correctly, is the more complicated one: ODbL allows the DRM restricted redistribution as long as the same data can also be accessed by a way that is not DRM-restricted. Sticking to your example, this is not because of a specific software, but because of the delivery mechanism the software is using to obtain its (map-)data. In case of this OSM-App, the user has to pay to use the more comfortable way to just tap the "download map" button inside the app. The free alternative provided is to log into an ftp-Server and download the map-file manually onto the smartphone. The result is the same, the app itself is free in both cases.

I personally think that your line of argumentation is valid, but I am not the one to decide, more on that further below.

What happended so far:

The Austrian LocalChapter is voluntarily serving as a point of contact for questions, mediating conflicts, organizer of meetings and doing lots of promotional work.

There have been lots of discussions about the compatibility of CC-BY with the ODbL already (e.g. https://discuss.okfn.org/t/maintenance-and-future-of-the-open-data-commons-licences/4460/31 or https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/freigabe-des-osterreichischen-kataster-fur-osm/8235/9). This post from the year 2017 on the OpenStreetMap Foundations blog describes the still-standing "order" of how to deal with data licensed by CC-BY: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ This is: let the data-provider sign a waiver to explicitly allow the CC-BY licensed dataset to be incorporated into the OpenStreetMap.

Because this topic repeatedly spawned discussions within the Austrian OpenStreetMap community and the state of Austria started to adopt the CC-BY license as a base for all its OpenGovernmentData, the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association increased its efforts to to point out the incompatibilities of the two licenses and got into contact with the national OpenGovernmentData-Provider (Brigitte Lutz) to obtain the required legal waiver to make it possible to integrate Austrias OpenGovernmentData into OpenStreetMap. We (but also OpenStreetMap mappers individually which are not members of the Austrian OSM-Associaion) have been in contact with multiple public offices of which some even were directly asking us about how to make their OpenGovernmentData compatible with OpenStreetMap. But in the context of a nation-wide common licensing scheme, we were not able to obtain individual waivers.

The last two years the Austrian OpenStreetMap Association was trying to get this waiver (we provided templates) directly from the Austrian OpenGovernmentData board. By this all Austrian OpenGovernmentData would become compatible with OpenStreetMap.

Maybe the reason for the national OpenGovernmentData provider to stick to the CC-BY without additional waiver is the mention of the CC-BY license as a possibility in the european (EU) PSI-regulation (see Art.4, Abs.3 of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2023.019.01.0043.01.DEU&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2023%3A019%3AFULL)? It seems like the CC-BY is interpreted as the only allowed option.

Where to go from there

Brigitte Lutz recommending a legal assessment seems to be the direct consequence of our efforts to asking for a signed waiver. A nation-wide (or even EU-wide?) solution would also be our preferred solution. If a legal assessment which can nullify inconsistencies between the two licenses can be created, this would be great news and the Austrian OpenStreetMap Assocciation supports this solution.

But it is not the Austrian OpenStreetMap association that can decide on this - for this reason I have included the OpenStreetMap Foundations legal contact ("legal-questions@osmfoundation.org") in the recipients of this email.

I want to ask the Licensing Working Group of the OpenStreetMap Foundation to pick up this topic and clarify if a legal assessment would make it possible to use Austrias CC-BY licensed OpenGovernmentData in OpenStreetMap?

Best regards,
Markus Mayr (ScubbX)
OpenStreetMap Austria

> Am 27.10.23 um 18:48 schrieb Roland Alton:
> Lieber Markus Mayr, >
> ich engagiere mich seit vielen Jahren gemeinsam mit Alexander Baratsits für Creative Commons in Österreich. Wir wurden von Brigitte Lutz als OGD Koordinatorin angefragt, ob wir eine Art Stellungnahme / Gutachten verfassen können, das die Nutzung von Open Data in OSM prinzipiell erlaubt.
>
> Sie meinte:
>
>> Wir wollen vermeiden, dass OSM’ler immer wieder bei bei einzelnen Organisationen (datenverantwortlichen Stellen) anfragen – die meisten Hausjuristen lehnen es jedoch ab, eine schriftliche Zustimmung zu geben – wird als unverhältnismäßig bzw. nicht notwendig erachtet.
>>
>> Nun hätten wir die Idee, dass wir Euch beauftragen, ein solches Gutachten zu erstellen, das aussagt, dass die unter CC BY 3.0 AT bzw. CC BY 4.0 Lizenz veröffentlichten Daten in der OpenStreetMap im Rahmen der dort geltenden ODbL 1.0 Lizenz eingepflegt und benutzt werden dürfen. – Genau das, was OSM möchte und dass dies an sie adressiert und veröffentlicht wird.
>
> Ich denke wir müssten so vorgehen, dass wir uns von euch nochmal erkären lassen, welche downstream restrictions in der Praxis tatsächlich relevant wären, welche die ODbL vorsieht. Wir könnten dann versuchen zu argumentieren, dass eine Verwaltungseinheit, welche OD bereit stellt, im Sinne der Verbreitung der Open Data Informationen kein Problem mit einer Einschränkung der Verfügbarkeit haben muss und dass sie dies auch in anderen Kontexten üblicherweise zulassen.
>
> Es geht also darum zu klären, wann DRM o.ä. bei OSM Daten verwendet wird:
>
> ODbL:
>
>> If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures.
>
Geht es da zB um die OSM App, welche auch im Google Playstore gegen Gebühr landet, aber im F-Droid frei ist?
>
> Weil be CC-by haben wir ja:
>
>> No downstream restrictions . You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.
>
>Eine mögliche Schlussfolgerung wäre, dass nachdem es ja immer eine OSM Version ohne DRM geben wird, ist meine Möglichkeit auf das Material zuzugreifen prinzipiell ja nie eingeschränkt, ausser vielleicht auf einem bestimmten Device.
>
>Gerne auch einen Besprechungstermin - hier sind mögliche Zeitslots von mir https://faircloud.eu/nextcloud/index.php/apps/appointments/pub/S6HQ3XIFEQ%3D%3D/form
>
>
> Gruss,
> Roland
>
>
> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
>
> *Von:* *EXTERN* Markus Mayr
> *Datum:* 5. Juli 2023 um 13:41:50 MESZ
> *An:* Lutz Brigitte
> *Kopie:* "OSM-AT Vorstand."
>
>
>
> Hallo Brigitte,
>
> *Idealversion:*
>
> Ich habe eine Vorlage zusammengestellt, die formal und inhaltlich das Optimum einer OSM-Erlaubnis darstellt. Diese liest sich dafür vielleicht aber auch etwas abschreckend, weil dort eine Paragraphennummer genannt wird. Unter dem ersten Punkt hätte ich vorgesehen, dass eine gewünschte Form der Attributierung eingetragen werden kann (dort wo "/[BEISPIELEINTRAGUNG_LAUT TITELKONVENTION_HIER_EINFÜGEN]/" steht), dies ist aber von uns aus nicht zwigend notwendig und kann auch gerne gelöscht werden. Ich kann mir allerdings vorstellen, dass ihr das gerne spezifizieren möchtet. /(/Anhang: /vorlage.docx)/
>
> *Weniger spezifische Version:*
>
> Wenn dieser Vorschlag gar nicht geht, könnte auch ein signiertes (digial oder auch analog) Dokument genügen, welches einfach bestätigt, dass die data.gv.at Daten unter den Bedingungen und der Lizenz der OpenStreetMap für diese verwendet werden dürfen. Das hätte die selbe Aussage, ist aber weniger spezifisch und auf Nachfrage würde man dann wieder bei den beiden Punkten von meiner Vorlage landen. Dennoch habe ich eine Vorlage für diese weniger spezifische Version mit angehängt. /(/Anhang: /vorlage_unspezifisch.docx)/
>
> Wir kommen mit beiden Varianten klar, finden die "Idealversion" aber besser, weil diese eindeutiger ist. Gerne kann ich noch Änderungen vornehmen und/oder wir sprechen hier in Salzburg nochmals darüber.
>
> lg, Markus

Haven’t heard back from them.

• Initial sender Markus Mayr (ScubbX) was to prepare some assessment on how Austria would be able to use CC-BY and was looking for guidance.
• The community there wanted to use the governmental data.
• FOSSGIS were about to translate the waiver to German and we could direct the Austrian community to that translation.

Action item: Dermot to reply to Markus and suggest setting-up a meetingwith the Austrian government. Tom Hummel would be interested to join.

---

OpenLandMap

https://opengeohub.org/about-openlandmap/?

Issues: Attribution and project name.

• They have attribution to OSM via an “i” button.
• There was disagreement whether contacting them about the attribution is necessary

Suggestion: We could send an “attribution love letter”, to make the attribution more prominent and about their name.

Other point mentioned: Edge case, as it uses OSM, but mostly not OSM.

---

Love letter candidate casaseneleste.com - Ticket#2024011610000011

Background https://otrs.openstreetmap.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=47623

Hi LWG.

I have found this site with I'm certain that is displaying OSM data in a map without complying with the license. It fails to:

* Provide credit to OpenStreetMap by displaying our copyright notice.
* Make clear that the data is available under the Open Database License.

I'm absolutely certain that I recongnized some of my contributions to OSM. https://www.casaseneleste.com/casa-con-piscina-en-pinares/185488823

The site is offering properties for rental. When the property has is location it is shown first in a map with all the other info, and also in the details page, with more photos of the property and a larger map.

It says they could be reached in contacto@casaseneleste.com but i prefer to be anonymous so i didn't contact them.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
M.

1st email communication: no physical signature needed and we don’t have to mention the mapper, as they requested to be anonymous.
2nd email communication: add letterhead and signature, from an osmfoundation email address.

Other points mentioned:

• Jim figured out who the app developer is, and the email will be addressed to them.
• The template of attribution love letters is for random mappers.
• If there is no reply or compliance, we could mention that we intend to reach out to the customers, such as the real-estate agency.

Next step: Jim to finalise the letter and bcc the LWG. Kathleen will add the letter to the LWG shared folder.

Guillaume joined 27’ after start.

---

OSMF transfer plan scope of work quote from law firm (move to EU)

Request by LWG for minutes to be redacted.

---

Queries to legal-questions

Assessment of Open Government License - Ontario

Background Due to the case by case approval basis for OGLish licenses I am asking if the LWG could assess Open Government License - Ontario and it's compatibility with the ODBL.

The link to the license can be found below.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-government-licence-ontario

LWG received two similar requests for official ruling for open licences from Canada. Both licences were based on the British Columbia open government license.

On standard open government license of Canada

• If there's been no variation from the standard open government license of Canada, then it does not need a waiver.
• The LWG wants people to check with the working group before, because it might be difficult for a mapper to compare the licences and determne that there hasn’t been any significant change.

On attributing sources 1st level: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
2n dlevel: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors Wiki- can be edited by anyone and does not imply that LWG has ruled that the licence is compatible with ODbL
3rd level: Source tags.

On their attribution requirement

• They require to “attribute whatever the source is”. If data comes from several regions our usual approach to attribute on the contributors page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributorslinked from the copyright page might create a big list.
• All open government licences from Canada seems to be in the same way. None requires to be in the copyright page. We also credit on source tags.

Other points mentioned

• Their licence does not seem that we would have to ask them for a waiver, like the CC-BY 4.0 licence.
• They have added in the exemptions: “Information or Records not accessible under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act(Ontario) – the LWG is ok with that.* Did not see: obligations to e.g. keep it up to date.

Licence assessment: The Open Government License – Ontario is compatible with ODbL.

Action item: Kathleent to write back that this OGL Ontario is okay, please add to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Canada before using

---

Ticket#2024030210000114

Background There is a bunch of useful data for British Columbia (western province ofCanada), as you can see here

https://webmap.rdn.bc.ca/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Public

a lot of this data, especially in rural areas is missing from OSM, look atsome of the smaller islands on OSM to see. Especially houses and housenumbers are barely mapped. It would be good to import this data into OSMand there is discussion here about doing that

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/street-addresses-in-nanaimo-rural-area/108588

Please tell us if the "Open Government License - Regional District ofNanaimo" license https://www.rdn.bc.ca/spatial-data-disclaimer-and-licenceis an OSM compatible license or not. Or possibly talk to the RegionalDistrict of Nanaimo to make it available or whatever is necessary to add itto this list https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/OGL_Canada_and_local_variants

Action item: Kathleen to write back that this OGL Nanaimo is okay, please add to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Canada before using.

---

Next Meetings

Monday 08 April 2024 (summer hours - 1700)
Monday 13 May 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 10 June 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 08 July 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 12 August 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 09 September 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 07 October 2024, 1700 UTC
Monday 18 November 2024 (back to winter hours - 1800)
Monday 09 December 2024, 1800 UTC

---

Meeting adjourned 57 minutes after start.