| |||||||||||||
There are yet another side to all thisThere are yet another side to all thisPosted Oct 23, 2008 8:15 UTC (Thu) by filipjoelsson (subscriber, #2622)In reply to: There are yet another side to all this by khim Parent article: OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing
To throw in a bone: In Sweden it is still illegal to publish a non-authorized map. The authorization step is a military guy removing any of our mobilization stuff from the map.
Nevermind that it is quite stupid - all you need to do to find military mobilization stuff is to compare aerial photography with recent maps (stuff that's in the photo but not the map tends to stand out) - it's quite illegal anyway. So is photographing from the air (plane or tower) without a permit, btw.
Is it obvious we've spent hundreds of years being afraid of the Russians, or what?
(Log in to post comments)
There are yet another side to all this Posted Oct 24, 2008 18:01 UTC (Fri) by Creideiki (subscriber, #38747) [Link] Almost correct. SFS 1993:1742 6§ says you're not allowed to distribute aerial photographs or detailed maps without permission. There are only a few areas (see AIP ENR 5 2.2.1, or any TMA map) where photography in itself is forbidden. Interestingly, SFS 1993:1742 7§ explicitly exempts pure satellite images from the permission requirements. How high resolution are the best satellite images commercially available nowadays?
|
|||||||||||||