I meant to reply to this part as well:
> One root of the disagreements is an attempt to treat an online map as abstract 'factual data' like a telephone directory. It isn't quite like that, not legally, and certainly not in the perceptions of contributors, who feel they are making a collaborative work just as much as Wikipedia. For that reason a 'computer cartography licence' might be a better fit than something purely about abstract 'data'.
Lines between facts, arrangements of facts, creative expressions of facts, and lots of variations between aren't super clear and vary among jurisdiction. A question is how much there is to gain from having a bunch of licenses customized to address these variations, or one that does pretty well across them (of course this matters most when copyleft is involved). It's not at all clear that a niche 'computer cartography licence' wouldn't cause more problems (lack of interoperability and wide understanding) than it would solve; same thing for a data-specific license.