[cwillu]

The problem is that factual details aren't copyrightable in the first place, so no amount of licensing will prevent organizations with enough money to pay a lawyer from understanding this and using the data as they see fit. And on the flip side, those organizations can pay those same lawyers to write scary boilerplate to make it seem like their map data is “proprietary” and therefore “protected by copyright” even though it isn't.

[bluGill]

Maps Traditionally have a few intentional errors because those are copyright, in turn meaning if one is found you can sue for copyright violations.

[cwillu]

I know that's the common story, but I have never seen any actual court cases confirming that theory; certainly the recoverable damages from such copying such an error would be minuscule.

[technothrasher]

Wikipedia has an entry that lists a few court cases, mostly showing that this strategy, as you surmise, fails to stand up in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry