shrekfx wrote:I've noticed a couple of posts of people who really dont want people to use online maps like google maps and mapquest. I think they are really good references to get street names and locations and if some are wrong, it can be edited later. They at least give a good idea of where things are and the names of streets.

You know, funny thing about this...I've occasionally had a look at Google maps and Mapquest when comparing notes (in the research sense). What I'm finding more and more as our map matures is actually that Google and Mapquest are the ones who are wrong. Of course, this thread was started 12 months ago, and a lot has changed since then.

Overall, Waze is updating faster, and more accurately, than either of them. Get anywhere outside an urban area where a million people live, and I can find the same basemap errors that Waze had, because nobody at either mapping company has bothered to fix anything.

So, to anybody 'using Google or Mapquest as a reference', consider the above, especially if you're a bit off the beaten trail. I almost hate to put it this way, but half the time, Google doesn't have a clue either. Like Waze, they only know what a mapping firm or their users has told them, and from what I've seen, we're making far more edits per day than they are. Government entities like cities and DOT tend to have better maps than the commercial mapping firms do, and they're the ones who built the streets in the first place.

I have occasionally used Google Street View to check something, but that's not using 'their map data', and I'm not overlaying, but merely consulting a still photograph to derive information, using a separate window (the case of 'I'm not copying the picture of that vase of roses, I'm merely describing what that vase of roses look like in words). To be perfectly honest, especially in rural settings, Google's map is starting to look a little stale compared to ours, if you ask me.

Cool. That makes sense, but also kinda sucks. Weird on how many things in this world is copy righted and that the use of knowledge like the location of streets and what not is illegal. I personally find it plane stupid especially since I know that google and map quest didn't personally go out and look at each and every street sign to put it into their system. Who knows how they do it and that point is moot. But thanks for the heads up on that and you weren't being harsh, the truth just may come off to be that way.

Hi all...
Just straying from the point slightly, where do we stand on road maps that we have gone out and brought. I have a few that I use for reference.

Many thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may sound legally evasive, but if I pull up Google Maps in a separate browser window or tab and visually look at the map and then switch back to a separate Waze window/tab and type in the name of something I saw on the Google Map, there is no distinct trail of data transfer that proves, beyond reasonable doubt (required in United States courts), that the information was acquired from Google's Maps. Sure, the two maps might look coincidental, but for one thing, if the information is actually correct, then that's expected, and for another, the coinciding information is circumstantial evidence against copying, at best, and shouldn't really be upheld in court.

Maybe someone here is a better expert on software copyright law, but from what I understand, looking at maps online, transfering knowledge into your head - or even handwritten notes that are subsequently destroyed - and then manually inputting it into a completely separate program aren't nearly as problematic as any kind of attempts to automate the process, such as using Google's aerials as an overlay, writing software to extract Google's information and directly submit it to Waze, etc. This is because the former is largely difficult to enforce; the information trail is broken at the point where you do something by hand.

Where using an online mapping system, like Google, as a manual reference can be problematic is things like their road classifications being totally different from Waze's, both in aesthetics and system functionality. Third party mapping systems can also show alternate street names along with primary ones in seemingly random ways making it difficult to tell which should be the Waze primary, whose criteria are very specifically outlined in the Wikis. Other systems can also have outdated images and/or streets and intersections/interchanges, potentially creating a similar problem as when Waze's own aerials are outdated. All of these things can easily confuse less experienced editors and create map/navigation problems. I can't even begin the count the number of times I've had to tell a local editor in my area that the Waze Wiki guidelines rule all, no matter what you see in any other mapping system, and just because they did something doesn't necessarily mean we need to immediately do it in Waze as well.

mapcat wrote:

dmcconachie wrote: It's not the use of street names etc that is illegal, it's the use of Google to create a derived work!

This.

Because how do you know that the street name you see on their map is correct? They do purposely give a small number of streets the wrong name, making it easy for them to discover anyone using their data.

By checking multiple sources to verify it's correct, Bing, Google, phone maps, map quest, yahoo maps.. etc...

*edit* I didn't read through and see KrankyD's post, whoops *edit*

And also remember that there is simply no good reason for getting information for Waze maps from competitors when many legal options exist.

CBenson wrote:I apologize for getting my hackles up when this issue is brought up. But it really bugs me to be told that it is illegal to use facts simply because I looked them up with Google.

Thanks for the clear, thoughtful, and thorough response. It's obvious now that our disagreement is only semantic, and given that you're not currently copying another company's work, nor advocating doing so, I have nothing further to add.

CBenson wrote:Yes. That is what I'm saying, if you are using copyrighted sources to establish public domain facts, then publishing those facts is not copyright infringement in the US.

How do you use copyrighted sources to "establish" public domain facts? To me, "establish" here would mean "determine to be factual", and if you are looking at the work of two private map companies, there is no guarantee that anything on either or both is a fact. For all you know, one of them could be copying the other, so far without being caught. If you can't determine it to be factual, then don't put it on Waze's map.

I would really like to see an example of something you wanted to edit that you didn't feel comfortable editing until you saw how Google portrayed it.

If I create a map of Annapolis and someone else copies it, I can sue them (regardless of whether the copy is used to make a profit). However, if they create their own map that looks entirely different (except for the underlying public domain facts) and includes Benson Blvd, that's not likely copyright infringement.

Define "looks entirely different". Waze maps don't look anything like anyone else's in some ways, and are almost exactly like other maps in other regards. Likewise, their function is either very different or very similar depending on perspective and motive.

Copyright infringement in the US requires that to be a copy the other map has to be substantially similar to mine. The mere inclusion of Benson Blvd on an otherwise different (except for underlying public domain facts) is unlikely to rise to the required level of substantial similarity.

Again, how you define "substantially similar" determines whether something inappropriate is going on. Since we're maintaining/enhancing a product we like, and want to be able to continue to use it, it's better to use a conservative definition IMO.

Yes, Easter eggs exist in data compilations. Let's take the hypothetical example above where someone else copies my map with the fictional Benson Blvd. If they independently create a map that looks just like mine, it is not copyright infringement. So when I try to sue them, their first defense is likely to be "Oh I never saw your map before in my life, so I couldn't have copied it." If I can't show that they actually saw my map, I can't prove copyright infringement. That's where the Easter egg comes in. If my fictional Benson Blvd is on their map, it proves that they actually did have access to my particular map. This showing of access to my map through the inclusion of Benson Blvd plus substantial similarity should be enough to prove copyright infringement. The use of Benson Blvd without substantial similarity would not be enough to prove copyright infringement as there would be no copy of my map.

Sorry, you lost me. This might make more sense if I understood your particular definition of "substantial similarity". To me, if something entirely of my own creation shows up in something published by someone else, in the exact same place, it's pretty obvious that there's a copyright infringement. Maybe they copied it from a third map that had copied my work without my knowledge--in that case it's still no less of a copyright infringement.

Since my Cecil Adams reference is too old for you, here's a more recent one, including a settlement:
Copying maps costs AA £20m

aaronr8684 wrote:But if you can trace (I know people don't) that road back to a public source (or non-copyrighted) no company along the way would have rights to claim copyright on it.

Of course. So use the public source and forget the copyrighted one. They're not hard to find!

For the basemapped world, at least, there is no need to use Mapquest, Google, OSM, Bing, or any other sources for street names, landmark names, etc. For the non-basemapped world, there might be a need, but it's unlikely that those other sources would have any better information than Waze does.