[Rebuild] Too many things to do before a license change
frederik at remote.org
Mon Feb 13 22:50:53 GMT 2012
it would be nice if you could at least sign your name *somewhere* in
This list (rebuild@) is dedicated to the rather technical side of how to
get from our current database to an ODbL clean database once it is clear
what data can be kept and what cannot.
Any discussion about the process that should come *before* that - i.e.
any discussion about how to determine what is kept and what isn't, whom
to contact, what significance your 80% number has, how to determine the
right time to actually execute the license change, and so on - falls in
the realm of legal-talk, where I'm full-quoting your message to.
On 02/13/2012 10:28 PM, FK270673 at fantasymail.de wrote:
> Only six weeks are left before the scheduled license change on April 1st. There are still too many open issues:
> - checking imports (e.g. h4ck3rm1k3) which is rather an administrative than a political issue
> - only 80% of worldwide mappers have agreed so far, despite a tremendous mailing effort
> - checking invalid e-mails?
> - sending paper letters to ~200 non-responding real-name mappers?
> - enabling self adoption of anonymous edits and second accounts?
> - How to deal with group accounts like mapping parties or schools with multiple authors?
> - How to deal with guest and test accounts?
> - How to deal with short-time mappers who did not reach the level of database protection?
> - How to deal with low-quality first-time mappers whose contributions can easily be removed?
> - How to deal with armchair mappers who (are supposed to) have copied from official maps?
> - How to deal with deceased mappers?
> - How to deal with forks that are ODbL-compatible, e.g. Commonmap?
> - How to deal with split ways?
> - How to replace ways that have been manufactured by decliners or non-responders and later modified by active mappers? In some cases, the current ownership attribution of split ways is simply fraud.
> As mentioned above, there are some special cases which can be rebuilt without any data loss, e.g. if the first editor has manufactured an empty way. I have seen many low-quality edits perfectly suited for silent rebuilding in the first stage. Gradual rebuild of "clean" ways would increase confidence among those who have declined for pollitical reasons. However, a sudden data loss makes many mappers more angry and drives them off :-(
> Based on historical experience, each of these issues will take at least one LWG session.
> As the OSMI inspector still contains many errors, it would be a good idea if any mapper was able to report typical license problems to a bug system (and not to the press nor to the court).
> Remapping is another activity that cannot be done neither in six weeks nor in six months. Remapping according to high ethical standards (local survey in the outback) requires some coordination. E.g. a bug tracking system like OpenStreetBugs to identify neighborhoods that need to be remapped on the ground.
> It would make sense to handle both license and remapping issues within the same bug tracking system.
> a) remapping required (e.g. adding maxspeed, surface)
> b) license problem (e.g. decliner has imported from a clean source)
> c) license and remapping problem: armchair mapper has redrawn the way that still needs to be verified by local survey. These bugs need to be confirmed twice.
> There are too many open issues which cannot be solved within few weeks (only if the LWG meets every weekday until April 1st).
> However, I would be happy if the LWG seriously pursued rather a clean than a quick license change. If anybody involved has already booked his vacation after April 1st, we may continue in May to pursue a clean license change.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the Rebuild