allow Google Earth photo's in postings?

[+Axel-F]

Hi All,

As passionate geocacher and active waymarker, I came accross the following issue. All waymarks can imho be photographed by the poster and therefore internet photo's should not be allowed. However, in some cases a Google Earth screen shot (just air view photo NO street view) can make the waymark more complete. A waymark of a isolated mansion or odd shaped building can be more beautifull when an additional GE photo is also uploaded and posted. It will spice up the WM.

So, what is my point?

I would suggest the following:

Under the folowing conditions, (additional) Google Earth photo's in a posting are allowed:

- without the GE photo the waymark must meet the posting guidelines

- in the Long Description the source of the GE photo must be mentioned

- <your suggestion>

 

Google has no problem with using their photo's under certain conditions.

 

I'm looking forward to all your positive contributions to this topic.

tnx

Edited January 29, 2016 by Axel-F

[+fi67]

Hi All,

As passionate geocacher and active waymarker, I came accross the following issue. All waymarks can imho be photographed by the poster and therefore internet photo's should not be allowed. However, in some cases a Google Earth screen shot (just air view photo NO street view) can make the waymark more complete. A waymark of a isolated mansion or odd shaped building can be more beautifull when an additional GE photo is also uploaded and posted. It will spice up the WM.

So, what is my point?

I would suggest the following:

Under the folowing conditions, (additional) Google Earth photo's in a posting are allowed:

- without the GE photo the waymark must meet the posting guidelines

- in the Long Description the source of the GE photo must be mentioned

- <your suggestion>

 

Google has no problem with using their photo's under certain conditions.

 

I'm looking forward to all your positive contributions to this topic.

tnx

Sometimes, an aerial view would be a great addition to the value of a waymark. But the situation is probably not that easy from a legal point of view.

 

You say, Google has no problem ... under certain conditions. What exactly are these conditions? Do they apply to Waymarking.

 

If I remember correctly (I did not check right now), Google is not very restrictive by itself with GE pictures. But they do only own a small fraction of the pictures. The major part are licensed from other copyright owners to use in Google Earth, and it is up to those to allow or disallow other uses. So it is usually not Google, but a large number of commercial and governmental bodies who own the rights, and you would have to check permissions or potential issues for every single one of them. This is not a task that a group of volunteer Waymarking officers can fulfill.

Edited January 29, 2016 by fi67

[+Axel-F]

in addition to my topic:

Google says on:

https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attribution Guidelines for Google Maps and Google Earth

All uses of Google Maps and Google Earth Content must provide attribution to both Google and our data providers. We do not approve of any use of content without proper attribution, in any circumstance. We require attribution when the Content is shown.

 

and

Thanks for considering Google Maps, Google Earth and Street View for your project! These guidelines are for non-commercial use except for the limited use cases described below; if you want to use Google Maps, Google Earth, or Street View for other commercial purposes, please contact the Google Maps for Work sales team. “Commercial purposes” means “use for sale or revenue-generating purposes”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Allthough GS is a commercial organisation I don't think that an additional GE picture wil generate revenue of any kind. It may however generate revenu for Google as GE is perhaps used more frequent...

[+fi67]

OK, that looks fine. They have somewhat lightened the requirements and restrictions since I read this page the last time.

 

In this case, I don't see any problem. Only the question if it falls under "Commercial Purposes" has to be answered by someone familiar with that field.

[+MountainWoods]

What's with the photo's?

 

Photo's what? Apostrophe means possessive. "Google photo's" means that there is a Google photo that owns something. What is it that it owns?

 

Now if you're talking about more than one Google photo, that would simply be Google photos. (You correctly didn't use Waymark's case's condition's guideline's, etc.; so what's with the "photo's"?)

[+The A-Team]

What's with the photo's?

 

Photo's what? Apostrophe means possessive. "Google photo's" means that there is a Google photo that owns something. What is it that it owns?

 

Now if you're talking about more than one Google photo, that would simply be Google photos. (You correctly didn't use Waymark's case's condition's guideline's, etc.; so what's with the "photo's"?)

Nitpicking the grammar and syntax of someone whose primary language likely isn't English seems very rude, not to mention totally off-topic.

 

Back on-topic, it seems like Waymarking would fall under the following clause from this page:

USES ON THE WEB OR IN APPLICATIONS

...

Google Earth images

 

We know the imagery in Google Earth, both current and historical, can provide useful visual context to news websites, blogs, and other educational sites. And often these sites want to use the imagery found in Google Earth as still images, both as-is or annotated with additional labels and features. You may use a handful of these images in a news article or on a blog, just please be sure to follow our attribution rules.

It sounds like as long as we provide appropriate attribution, it should be fine to use Google imagery (note, the imagery in Google Maps is the same as in Google Earth, so they would both be covered by this section).

[+dreamhummie]

As a good (Waymarking) friend and good Officer relationship with Axel-F i wanna make my opinion about this question.

 

We have last week a pretty discussion about internet pics on Waymarking in one of our daily (Waymarking) mail conversations and a idea about Waymarking and also to setup our new group Dutch Municipal and Provincial Heritage.

Axel-F would like to see internet/Google Earth pics in postings.

I said go to the forum, ask it there, because there is a discussion about it because I was against it. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333511

I appreciate his action on this topic. He is good.

 

But!!

We setup a new category and his idea was to put the following lines in the posting rules:

 

Under a few conditions, (additional) internet photo's in a posting are allowed:

- without the internet photo the waymark must meet the posting guidelines

- in the Long Description the source of the internet photo must be mentioned

Summarized, an internet photo should be an addition to the waymark.

 

If we make these posting rules in our new category: Dutch Municipal and Provincial Heritage what would happen in the comments in the Forum Topic or Peer Review ?

 

Look at the first post from Lumbricus in http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333511

We have also a Category Rijksmonumenten with a BIG database and what do you think about our database for a new setup: http://www.provincialemonumentendrenthe.nl/monumentenlijst/

 

Full of pics to cheat

 

What is your opinion now you read my argument in our daily mail conversations incl. Axel_F to accept any internet pics in our category ?

 

Plz reply

Grtz John.

Axel F knows I´am giving my arguments against it later in this topic, he is waiting for it.

 

Elwin ik was even heel erg druk met E/Bike Charging Stations maar zag hem wel voorbij komen hoor pik. Bedankt.

Met vriendelijke groetjes.

John.

[+fi67]

The original post did explicitly mention aerial view pictures taken fom Google Earth or Maps.

 

Don't mistake that with "internet photos". You are talking about something completely different. Something, that has no chance for broad support anyway, and would not be legal in most cases.

[+Axel-F]

Yep I'm only talking about allowing an ADDITIONAL Google Earth screen shot (if a poster likes to do that!) and by now means any ohter type of internet pics.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Axel-F