[Rebuild] Example of a questionable changeset - will it be automatically reverted?
frederik at remote.org
Mon Apr 16 16:31:33 BST 2012
On 04/16/2012 04:24 PM, Kevin Halton wrote:
> I have seen several changesets recently with descriptions similar to
> "relicensing" or "licence change", where it appears that the nodes are
> just being copied and pasted into new ways. I would like to know if
> there is an established approach to such changesets, and whether they
> will be automatically identified and reverted?
There's currently no algorithm in place that would automatically detect
a situation where someone simply copies+pastes a way or even a number of
ways. However we have received some complaints about such cases, and
such data will be retroactively (but manually) removed even after the
license change if we find it violates CC-BY-SA.
And many of those who have not agreed to the license change are watching
things *very* closely.
> This means to me, that the "clean" status has been edited, but the
> coordinates are identical. In my view the data is still not clean and
> the whole changeset should be reverted. I presume that the other
> changesets in the series have similar qualities (although I have only
> looked at two of them so far). My first question to this list is then,
> do you agree that this changeset is questionable or does it comply with
> the cleanup guidelines?
Without looking at the specific changeset: Simply cutting and pasting
CC-BY-SA data to get rid of the "audit trail" and claim to be the owner
of something you haven't surveyed or traced yourself is *clearly* a
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the Rebuild