From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Geolion Opendata WMS/WFS-Server

Bin gerade auf die WMS-Server des Kantons Zürich gestossen: Meines Erachtens sind die OSM tauglich. In Liste aufnehmen? --Why-T (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


From my point of view is still far away from being compatible to the OSM licensing. We got an exemption from the attribution requirement but all other limitations of their license still apply:

  • data has to be updated regularly (article 5.2)
  • abusive ("missbräuchlich") usage of the data terminates the license (article 8) – What is "missbräuchlich"? Using the data to show the bad face of SBB? That was forbidden by an earlier version of the license.

The text they use to lift the attribution requirement for us was copied from is the same as used at Deutsche Bahn's open data portal where I myself suggested it in 2015. That itself would not be a problem. But Deutsche Bahn has been using CC-BY 4.0 and therefore they were aware that they allow almost everything.'s license is more restrictive; it does not grant freedom to keep historical datasets to its data consumers.

Therefore, I suggest to remove the entry. --Nakaner (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC), edited --Nakaner (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

5.2 applies to "ODPCH data" which is defined in a way that doesn't seem to make sense and essentially seems to cover the data they are providing on the platform, the definition section contains an item "Processed data" that fits use in OSM and which does not seem to be affected by 5.2. Article 8 only affects future access to new data so isn't as limiting as it sounds and unproblematic for use in OSM. It should be noted that this discussion is largely an academic exercise as the stops/stations were imported under the old regime (DIDOK) and other data is likely not interesting for us, we do use the current data for QA purposes which would seem to be uncritical. SimonPoole (talk)
It seems to me that the terms of use mixes licensing and the terms applying to the use of their service/platform, and that not all articles are concerned with both. Thus "missbräuchliche Verwendung" in Article 8 probably refers to causing undue load (which might cause a DoS) on their servers, attempts to manipulate the servers or the data on them and similar scenarios. It might also refer to using the data in any way unlawful regardless of license. As Simon has already pointed out, the only sanction in that article is not a termination of a previously granted license, but that they'll prevent the offender to use the "data" (they probably mean the service providing the data, not the data itself) further.
Off course, I'm putting a lot of interpretation into that here. The phrasing of the terms and conditions is indeed rather unclear and at that unfortunate, but a judge would also have to guesstimate the terms' intent rather than interpreting them verbatim, especially if the verbatim interpretation makes so little sense.
--Das-g (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

WMS Server der Schweiz entdeckt

WMS List

Main Page -

License -

WMS-Server -


Das ist Swisstopo, bereits gelistet unter Not-compatible data sources. Die Lizenz ist hier (verlinkt von der oben verlinkten Seite) und nicht vereinbar mit OdbL. --Datendelphin (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ich bin mir da nicht sicher ob es wirklich swisstopo ist. SwissTopo wäre ja die Standardkarte. Die WMS server beinhalten die Standardkarte aber nicht. Ich denke, dass es bei nur dann um swisstopo geht, wenn man swisstopo als unterliegenden Layer nutzt. Auf dem WMS Server gibt es zudem einen Layer der sich OpenData-AV nennt. --Teleborian (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Bundesamt für Landestopografie swisstopo macht mehr als nur die "Standardkarte" (was auch immer das sein soll). Ausserdem nennt die Seite, die du selbst unter dem Stichwort "License" verlinkt hast (hier noch die deutschsprachige Variante), ziemlich durchgehend "swisstopo" als Rechteinhaber, ohne das auf die "Standardkarte" einzuschränken.
Was den Layer "OpenData-AV" und dessen Namen angeht: Steht irgendwo explizit, dass für diesen eine andere Lizenz gilt, und falls ja, welche? Vieles von dem, was swisstopo als "open data" anpreist, ist leider nur unter Lizenzen oder gesetzlich geregelten Bedingungen erhältlich, die weder die open definition der Open Knowledge Foundation erfüllen noch zur ODBL kompatibel sind.
--Das-g (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)