Well… it was sad that external link map removed from toolbox, this is important to search any point place or street name quickly, and the other map will be reference for best result. I hope it will be back soon?
Did anyone download the script? Maybe we could get that section of the script to manually enter the links back into the toolbar for those who want to use it.
It’s officially forbidden by Waze, now you’re warned.
The entire point is that for legal reasons we are NOT ALLOWED to …
and then add that information into Waze. If we did that, we are STEALING that data from the other source, and it can cause major problems! What Waze is saying, is that you were never allowed to use those sources to gather information to be copied into Waze. They don’t actively look for it, but if it is ever brought to their attention that such actions were taking place, i.e. people were copying data from other sources into Waze, you can rest assured that to avoid any legal troubles, the staff would immediately just wipe that entire area clean of any-and-all edits. This would then bring that area back to zero erasing countless hours of our volunteer work. No-one wants that to happen, so they asked nicely, to make it harder for people to do that.
Oyyo probably understands the ramifications this can bring, and therefore has chosen to comply with their request.
OTOH the livemap link button is in a separate category as it links to a waze property, and there is also an argument which can be made for the GMM link as well.
We should not be looking for ways to get around this, we should not be doing this at all! We are jeopardizing everyone’s work by importing (even seemingly small amounts of) data from external sources.
So why no Google Maps link at least?
Google OWNS Waze.
Waze already uses satellite imagery from Google.
Waze uses Google Maps as its primary source for address/POI location information data.
Waze has a built-in Street View function, which shows you stuff from SV from, well… GOOGLE.
How is a link button to bring up Google Maps view in another tab violating anything WRT Google Maps?
This is the very reason for those other sources being disallowed. Looking at Google Maps to get the name of the street could be construed as a copyright violation.
Google has allowed use of Streetview, as incorporated into the editor, as an allowable source, and we can get the names from street signs visible in Streetview if necessary. But Google Maps is not an allowed source, nor is Bing, Yahoo, or any other copyrighted source.
As far as Livemap and the Beta Editor links, I don’t see any reason for those to be removed.
You’re aware that street names are a matter of public record, right? :?
I’ll go on record again as saying that I do not think that looking or referencing Google Maps to get the name of a street is a copyright violation. Even if it were, providing a link to Google Maps is not looking at Google Maps to get the name of a street.
However, I do understand that it only takes one significant jurisdiction where this argument could be nonfrivolously raised for waze to want to avoid the issue. Waze is a data creator and provider, thus will naturally advocate for more restrictive copyright/data protection laws. They don’t want to defend themselves by arguing that any kind of copying is allowed; they will only want to defend themselves by saying they don’t copy anyone else’s work in any manner whatsoever.
Well again I don’t think the link button rises to the level of copying, but waze is going to stay far away from the line of what is prohibited to reduce the risk that anyone will accuse it of encouraging editors to cross the line. However, there is plenty of information on Google maps that is not the satellite or SV imagery available in WME. I don’t know how Google structures its agreements with its data providers, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if creating new commercial databases is not permitted under some of those agreements.
A link to that public record can be incorporated into Waze, in fact waze has said it would appreciate being given those links. But copying out of a copyrighted database, who did the work of searching the public and displaying it nicely, may be different. Also keep in mind, not all street/venue names as displayed in Google Maps are written exactly as they appear in public record.
While they can copyright the presentation of that public information, they cannot copyright the public information itself. If they could, nobody would ever be able to record a new presentation of any of Bach’s symphonies as long as there’s a current recording of it that’s copyrighted.
In the above example, I could take the exact same sheet music that was used for one recording, throw together an orchestra, have them play it while I record it, and sell the new recording without ever violating the rights of the first recording company. I can’t, however, copy a CD of the other recording and run around selling it - that would be a violation of their copyright.
The point being that copyrighting the presentation of a public work is the same, regardless of the medium.
Doing a visual check (with your eyes) to confirm a publicly-available street name and then making a change elsewhere manually isn’t the same thing as an actual copy would be.
While I agree with the sentiments posted recently above. I used the google map maker link for quick referencing when I actually did want to make a change to the google map. With that gone I am less likely inclined to do so. To translate that in to plain english I will not be fixing Google Map problems any more but referring said errors by reporters to fix it themselves.
With the removal of a tool that makes it easier to submit corrections to GMM (which in turn benefits Waze), I’m also no longer inclined to do so, and will simply tell reporters to do it themselves. :?
You are correct, however if their version of the street name, place name, etc. is slightly different than the public record, and you copy it into Waze, you have now copied protected data which is not in the public record. The only way to be certain what you are copying is public, is to look for it in the public record, not in a protected source.
Perhaps Oyyo can add the buttons, back but only with not copyrighted sources i.e. livemap, beta editor, non-copyrighted public record sites or government GIS.
I never had much success with GMM anyway, but as I said earlier, maybe Oyyo can restore just that external source. Perhaps with a notice To be used only for making edits to Google Maps. DO NOT copy any information from Google Maps into Waze. linking to the wiki page on external sources. It could be arranged a notice above the GMM site in a frame, or a popup notice when you click the button, or something creative.
I think you’re seriously over-thinking it. When was the last time you heard of a copyright claim along the lines of, “Oh, we made a typo on that name and then you have it now with the same misspelling so it must have come from us and by the way the misspelled name is copyrighted by us so now we’re going to sue you?” 
And even if such a thing were plausible, I seriously doubt that Google would sue its own company…
Are you trying to kill Oyyo? :lol: Have you actually looked at government GIS sources? There’s no central repository that could be easily linked to from a button on the toolbar. Individual State/county/city assessor offices, with different formats and availability. Some have “live” GIS maps that you can navigate around, a’la GM. Some have PDF files you can download, which may or may not contain street address information. Some don’t make anything available for access online - you get to come in and purchase sheets that they copy off for you.
Yea, good luck with that… 
No that’s not correct. What allows the second recording is that copyright infringement requires copying. So if you have never heard a prior recording to the Bach symphony and you then record it, you cannot be copying the prior recording.
What makes you so sure? If you do that from a protected data compilation in a jurisdiction with a broad sweat of the brow doctrine why would it not be a violation.
I call Straw Man. If you’ve heard a performance and decided to do one of your own, of a work like that, it doesn’t infringe on anything because the song itself is public domain - only the particular performance by that particular orchestra is copyrighted. If what you were saying was right, nobody would ever be able to reproduce one of those performances because odds are that anyone who listens to that music is going to have heard the song, even if they don’t know what orchestra performed it.
What, the doctrine that the USA rejected years ago (and thus doesn’t enforce) and that Israel (which I believe is where Waze is located, if I recall correctly) has all but rejected it (requiring that a work exhibit some degree of originality in order to be copyrightable)? That doctrine? 
(Heck, even the link you provided points out those facts. <grin> Every other country listed in that article also seems to indicate that they all more-or-less don’t hold to it, to one degree or another.)
I think you’re both wrong. If you use facts from a data complication in a non-sweat of the brow jurisdiction, then it doesn’t matter if the facts are false or not as you can’t protect what is presented as fact. So in the US you can reference Google for street names and if you happen to use one that that Google has wrong, it is not copyright infringement.
On the other hand if you copy facts from a protected data compilation in a sweat of the brow jurisdiction, then even using the facts that appear in the public record can be an infringement if you obtain them from the protected compilation.
See the case referenced here (although they did lose). The case however does reinforce point one above.
This is likely not about what Google does with data it has gathered, but rather what Google is doing with data it has licensed from others. Thus if the license agreement prohibits Google from creating another database with the the data in a subsidiary, then some third party data provider may well still sue Google/Waze if Google/Waze is facilitating copying the data from Google maps to the Waze database.
When a case like that is lost, it usually sets a precedent that can affect any future cases.
Then they should be really concerned, if that’s the case. Didn’t Waze do the initial basemap import from them? Or did they get it from some other (presumably public) source?