Olestas wrote:
But why google?? And Waze livemap? At least put livemap back... it was very useful.

You can click the Livemap link in the top menu bar which brings you to the current location on the livemap.

CastroBR wrote:

Olestas wrote:

Pizuz wrote: You can click the Livemap link in the top menu bar which brings you to the current location on the livemap.

Thanks, did not know this

But still, waze uses satellites, addresses and places from google maps and mapmaker. Why are these not allowed?

They are about to release a new editor with integrated Google maps adding automatically house numbers, etc. I suppose they want the feature to be somehow exclusive?

Wasn't there this thread about those geocoding data sources? Maybe HQ struck a deal to use those instead, who knows. At least in Germany there are a few regions where neither OSM nor Google had correct data compared to the official maps released by the state.

CBenson wrote:

PesachZ wrote:To do so they will, as they have already done in the past, revert the map of that entire area (possibly even the entire country) back to the basemap import.

If further emphasis is needed see here.

Wasn't that caused by Someone™ ripping off entire primitives and not just street names from OSM? Anyway, I hope that HQ will find some sort of legal replacement for this.

It seems to me that someone at Waze jumped to conclusions. Having a link to someone else's map, especially via third party tools, in no way creates additional liability on Waze's part, nor does removing such links reduce liability. If Waze is found to have infringing data, they're screwed. If not, they aren't.

Waze can try to put up a legal defense, I suppose, that they did everything possible to discourage users from copying, and this adds to it. But it will be a sideshow to the only real question: is their data infringing or not infringing?

The same thing could have bee accomplished by asking that the button pop up a message before opening the other map window: This link is provided for you convenience in viewing another provider's map information. You acknowledge that you are not permitted to use copyrighted information from another source in editing the Waze map. ACKNOWLEDGE / CANCEL o <- check to not show this message for 30 days.

Most of us make all sorts of non-infringing use of other maps. We submit rpeorts to Google. We view signs on Streetview. Yes, you can get Streetview images on WME, but they'r enot as good -- the Window is smaller, and you can't go back to a previous version of the image if the current version is blurred. There are also some sources whose data is freely available that could be linked but now never will, apparently. (Shhh, in the US, we can even view signs in Bing or Nokia's maps for US edits without infringing. YMMV in other countries.)

I hear the pain of users like (I think) SuperDave, who just won't be bothered to submit changes to GMM, or won't be bothered to verify signage beyond what WME provides. I don't think everyone will personally quit those activities, but they may have to have a more motivated moment to do so, which means the quality of editing will sometimes suffer.

It is what it is, and each editor may do as he or she pleases with this result. No need to get upset about it. Frustrated? Yes. Upset? No.

TL;DR: There isn't really a legal reason to have done this. If you are frustrated by it, and it gets in the way of your editing, feel free to stop using other maps in conjunction with your Waze editing. But don't let it get to you, this is not your real life.

CBenson wrote:

qwaletee wrote:If Waze is found to have infringing data, they're screwed. If not, they aren't.

But it will be a sideshow to the only real question: is their data infringing or not infringing?

No. This is not how copyright works - at least in the US (and the US doesn't have much other protections for data). You have to have copying to have copyright infringement. So you can have the exact same data, but if you independently created it then it is not copyright infringement, while if it was copied from someone else then it can be copyright infringement. What matters is how the data is created, not just whether it turns out to be same as what someone else created. So if waze can say they discouraged things that would promote copying, that is a defense.

You may not realize it, but you said what I said.

The main difference is I pointed out that it is a at most an extra point in a larger defense, it won't stand at all on its own. There's a ton of case law going back, I think, to Prodigy (anyone remember that?) about whether a web site owner that publishes user-generated content is considered the publisher of that information. Waze is of course the owner of the data, in this case, even though it is user-generated, because they insist to the end user (us) that they own (our) work.product.

So their real defense is going to be that they told us that they do not permit use of the site to perform IP-infringing activities. All this does is add a cherry on top of that sundae - we said it, and where we found a potential tool to help violators, we tried our best to eliminate it. That shows a little more good faith. The bigger good faith is examples of their proactively taking down infringing content, which I don't know if that has ever happened (the case in what was it, Chile? was not really proactive, as they were informed that they has already infringed; while not proactive, they at least were very responsive and erring on the side of caution in removing the offending material... even though they didnt have a good way to not err on the side of caution!).

Just a note to everyone on both sides of this issue.

Waze has needs. Editors have needs. Clearly there's a conflict here between SOME editor needs and a SPECIFIC Waze need. This is their product and their site, and their incontrovertible Need (at least their lawyers think so). Ergo, they have to "win," even it ticks a lot of editors off.

Some of the ticked off editors even understand the problem Waze faces. That doesn't mean they have to feel good about it. There are others who don't see what the fuss is about, either because they didn't use those features much or more easily go with the flow.

This thread was still useful to those who needed to vent about it. It would do well for editors on both sides of the issue to understand that this is most of what this thread has really been about.

If really Copyright is the reason, then use municipal spatial plans.
Spatial plan of Latvia
For example : Spatial plan of Zante
PDF to JPG online converter>
http://i62.tinypic.com/2rm1izo.jpg

Needed a tool with which to add the jpg to Waze Editor + latitude and longitude of a point on jpg or png
Or need the tool to add a WMS WMS servers as background

It is unfortunate that the link to Google MapMaker has been removed along with everything else. I used that link frequently -- not to get any information from Google Maps, but to make corrections to their maps.

OyyoDams wrote:

Code: Select all

1.4.5.1
Update: References to external maps removed (asked by Waze staff)

Asked by Waze staff ???

We asked for a part of their sale to Google....did we ever get our part ???

Before posting a complaint about the removal of external data links, think about how you'd feel if your entire country's map was deleted. http://blog.waze.com/2010/08/thanks-and ... gy-to.html