<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Nick and all continuing mappers,<br>
<br>
To be fair, it also works the other way around, a road and the
information contributed by a decliner is split and randomly one half is
then "clean" and it is difficult to quantatively judge whether the
information value carried over was also known independently by the new
accepting contributor. However, in Australia the overwhelming case does
seem to be as you describe.<br>
<br>
I wonder if the solution is to revert contributions by specific
declined users who have clearly indicated that they will never accept
the new terms, or at least specific changesets by them? This would deal
with the maxspeed issue as I think Nick is suggesting in another thread
and the missing street names. I believe, but will double check, that
it will also simply put back the splits. I also want to check what
happens when an accepting user has subsequently made changes over the
top. With these caveats aside, what do you and continuing contributors
think? Nick, is this something you would personally handle or should we
ask the guys in the data working group? What should the list consist of?<br>
<br>
User JohnSmith is an obvious candidate to resolve maxspeed. For me as
a personal mapper, user Franc has made many such splits in my Sydney
mapping area, for very constructive reasons but has clearly stated he
will not accept the new terms. As probably the worst devil the OSMF has
in terms of promoting license re-organisation and the way of going
about it, I am though very, very hesitant to push the issue without
clear discussion by and consensus of continuing mappers. It is great to
be able to finally talk without being told that everything ever
suggested must be a priori wrong, wrong, wrong ... but I fully
understand that I ain't necessarily right either.<br>
<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/01/2012 08:17, Nick Hocking wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADEd0cW6BgC7QQzi8e=430tJE=_kRRuHSvMAkt23QGnksg5=Tw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p>If a decliner splits a ,mappers road then he/she becomes the
version 1<br>
owner of that mappers copyrightable information for the rest of the way.</p>
<p>I think it's morally (maybe even legally) wrong for the decliner
to now<br>
extinguish this copyright by refusing to relicence it.</p>
<p>Since I think it unlikely that they see things as I do, I think it
would<br>
be good if we could find all such occurrences in the OSM database and<br>
list out the original owner so that they could reclaim their copyright.</p>
<p>Maybe we could.....</p>
<p>If two ways with the same name are geographically close but not
touching<br>
then list out the version 1 owners, lat/lon and name.<br>
(only if exactly one of the two version 1 owners is a decliner.)</p>
<p><br>
Unfortunately this wouldn't cover the cases where the decliner has done<br>
a single split, thus taking over the way, or where he has split the<br>
way, discarded the front bit and then back filled from the split.</p>
<div>The first example of the last case that I've noticed is in
Sydney but<br>
fortunately I have surveyed that particular area myself so I can
reclaim <br>
the mappers information using my own data.<br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Nick</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>