Board index FlightGear Development Scenery

OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Questions and discussion about enhancing and populating the FlightGear world.

OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby f-ojac » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:35 pm

Hi,

It seems that OpenStreetMap is soon going to finally end to a licence change. It is not GPL, but ODbL. Has someone got a clue on its compatibility with GPL ?

Thanks !
--
If you want to support my Terrasync server, hosted on a private server, you can donate here: http://ns334561.ip-5-196-65.eu/WS2.0/WS ... 2.0.1.html
f-ojac
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:50 am
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby martin » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:58 pm

olivier.jacq wrote:It seems that OpenStreetMap is soon going to finally end to a licence change. It is not GPL, but ODbL. Has someone got a clue on its compatibility with GPL ?


There's this use case - which started as a question specifically related to OpenSouce (GPL) flight simulation but has been modified over the time:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Using_OSM_data_in_a_computer_game_together_with_other_data_sources

Nevertheless I think this still applies to FlightGear Scenery and according to my personal !! understanding I'd say: This should be ok for us - as long as we're publishing our copy of the "derivative" database. So, since it's widely understood that the simple process of importing the unmodified Planet Dump into a PostGIS database is to be identified as creating a derivative, we'll have to make our database public.
Hah, what a joke, this would mean that we'd be one among hundreds who are forced to publish identical PostGIS dumps :-)

There's still one major drawback: So far I've been unsuccessful in motivating people to do a sytematic comparison of the coverage between our current VMap0-based road network and OSM. OpenStreetMap has, without doubt, the most detailed road network which is available at no cost (even tough some of their stuff is just a VMap0 import :-) , but in some areas of our World they still don't provide the same coverage.
In consequence, turning OSM into a drop-in-replacement for FlightGear's road network requires someone - or better a group of people - to inspect our VMap0 roads, trying to find out if the corresponding roads are already available in OSM and identifying those which are still missing.

Cheers, Martin.
FlightGear Scenery Release Manager
martin
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:03 am
Location: EDLN

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby f-ojac » Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:11 am

Thanks for your answer Martin, this sounds promising.

I am ready to work on this for the west part of France, Brittany, for the moment. Really willing to experiment Corine+OSM !!

Please tell me in details how I can help. I'm sure this will be of interest for others as well.

For instance here is an example in OSM : http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.44 ... rs=B000FTF
And more or less the same in our scenery DB based on VMAP0 : http://mapserver.flightgear.org/map/?lo ... FFTTFFTFFF

(I removed the Corine Landcover so it is easier to see).

I guess we'll also have to say what level of detail we want to have with roads.
--
If you want to support my Terrasync server, hosted on a private server, you can donate here: http://ns334561.ip-5-196-65.eu/WS2.0/WS ... 2.0.1.html
f-ojac
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:50 am
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby martin » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:58 am

olivier.jacq wrote:I am ready to work on this for the west part of France, Brittany, for the moment. Really willing to experiment Corine+OSM !!

Please tell me in details how I can help. I'm sure this will be of interest for others as well.


I suspect that the coverage of OSM in Europe as well as all the other nicely developed regions of The Earth is at least on par with VMap0, in most cases OSM will be a lot better .... let alone those countries where roads had been imported from third party sources: USA, The Netherlands, as far I remember China is on the list as well, even though large parts there are just a copy of VMap0 ....
But there are also regions where it's a bit different. In order to provide a simple example, please have a look at this one (Planet Dump 091230 ):

http://mapserver.flightgear.org/map/?lon=42.65663&lat=18.24038&zoom=12&layers=0B00000FTFFFTFFFTFFF

There are pieces of roads in OSM which don't show up in VMap0. But there are also pieces of roads in VMap0 which are not yet available in OSM. From my perspective the ideal solution would be if a group of people would sytematically search the web map this way, add the missing pieces to OSM (according to OSM's rules) and report back when they consider the task as being finished. Basically the same applies to railroads.

olivier.jacq wrote:I guess we'll also have to say what level of detail we want to have with roads.


Well, as soon as "we" start adding roads into the OSM database, "we" should make sure that the result is conformant to OSM's measures. So, please don't just copy VMap0 roads into OSM, this idea has already been discussed several years ago and rejected by OSM.

Cheers, Martin.
FlightGear Scenery Release Manager
martin
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:03 am
Location: EDLN

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby JonS » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:17 am

martin wrote:
olivier.jacq wrote:Nevertheless I think this still applies to FlightGear Scenery and according to my personal !! understanding I'd say: This should be ok for us - as long as we're publishing our copy of the "derivative" database. So, since it's widely understood that the simple process of importing the unmodified Planet Dump into a PostGIS database is to be identified as creating a derivative, we'll have to make our database public.

Hah, what a joke, this would mean that we'd be one among hundreds who are forced to publish identical PostGIS dumps :-)


Actually since all the software we're using is freely available we *don't* need to provide the derivative database, since anyone can re-create it. Instead we just need to document how it's done, and of course list OSM in the credits (which we do for current sources already).

Jon
JonS
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:03 pm

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby martin » Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:39 am

JonS wrote:
martin wrote:[...] So, since it's widely understood that the simple process of importing the unmodified Planet Dump into a PostGIS database is to be identified as creating a derivative, we'll have to make our database public.

Hah, what a joke, this would mean that we'd be one among hundreds who are forced to publish identical PostGIS dumps :-)


Actually since all the software we're using is freely available we *don't* need to provide the derivative database, since anyone can re-create it. Instead we just need to document how it's done, [...]
[/quote]

Well, apparently people are having different opinions on this, not only here but also among OSM'ers. To be honest, I don't expect anyone to sue us if we don't publish our PostGIS dump of the OSM Planet file, but if we really intend to stick with the rules, I'm convinced that we would have to ....

Cheers, Martin.
FlightGear Scenery Release Manager
martin
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:03 am
Location: EDLN

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby stuart » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:11 pm

Hi Martin,

The license change is good news indeed. Thanks very much for your involvement.

I've compared the VMAP0 data with the OSM data for Scotland visually using the MapServer. For those looking to do the same, I would recommend choosing the "Landcover-DB Custom-Scenery" Layer, as it appears to be blank, which makes it much easier to compare the OSM and VMAP0 roads by simply selecting the appropriate ovelays.

I've noticed only one or two roads that are present in VMAP0 but not OSM in the entirety of Scotland. The roads in question are sufficiently minor (small roads on islands, or minor roads that it would be difficult to see from the air) that IMHO it's not worth the effort to add them to OSM.

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby statto » Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:52 pm

In that case the OSM people probably haven't gotten to the road yet. The UK has been well-mapped.

Unfortunately some other areas of the world - Siberia, for instance - will have better vmap0 data than OSM data.
Custom Scenery available from http://www.stattosoftware.com/flightgear
statto
 
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: OSM/ODbL "vs" FG/GPL

Postby martin » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:34 pm

statto wrote:Unfortunately some other areas of the world - Siberia, for instance - will have better vmap0 data than OSM data.


Or, what is actually my concern, no OSM data at all.
This reminds me of one _really_ remote airfield which is now having an improved layout - I really like it !

http://mapserver.flightgear.org/map/?lon=128.90367&lat=71.69746&zoom=11&layers=0B00000TFFFFFFFFTFFF

Cheers, Martin.
FlightGear Scenery Release Manager
martin
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:03 am
Location: EDLN


Return to Scenery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot [Bot], wlbragg and 1 guest