[OSM-talk] [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: Mass revert now??
Eugene Alvin Villar
seav80 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 17:16:51 GMT 2012
While it's probably true that remapping in Australia would probably
lead to lesser quality data since there's no more Nearmap to trace
from (but only with respect to positional attributes), I don't think
remapping in most of the rest of the world would lead to loss of data
I've started remapping in my little corner of my country and I've
actually only now noticed that the original data is of lesser quality
since the data was originally traced from Yahoo imagery. I'm retracing
from Bing imagery, which has a higher resolution, and am going out
doing some actual surveying and correcting some wrong street names and
adding missing features.
In short, this remapping exercise I'm doing actually leads to better
data quality. So I disagree with your assertion that the license
change is "a disruptive change for little or no benefit". I have read
the ODbL and personally consider it a better license for OSM data than
CC, and this remapping exercise I'm doing is an additional benefit.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:45 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 January 2012 20:38, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's the point. I'm not surprised, I'm not offended. I believe the
>> disgruntled have made their point, and I definitely supported them
>> while the debate was active. Now that it's over, and a done deal, I
>> think it would be much better for them to now (begrudingly,
>> reluctantly, ...) tick the damn box and move on. I wouldn't even be
>> surprised or particularly offended if they also chose to have nothing
>> further to do with this community. But to put in thousands of hours of
>> work to create free map data that can be used by anyone, and then to
>> finish up having contributed nothing strikes me as a spectacularly
>> selfish act of self-immolation.
> Perhaps you and others complaining loudly about people being selfish
> should blame those responsible, OSM-F, they chose to change licenses
> even though many pointed out how much would have to be tossed out, and
> even after all the tossing is finished I doubt the data set will be
> clean enough to change licenses.
> But for what end is all this work being tossed out? What is going to
> be really gained in the long run?
> It surely no longer is to have the most accurate map, all the
> remapping is usually from lower quality data sources, and time spent
> remapping could have been spent making the map better, that hardly
> seems like a very pragmatic approach to me.
> And no it's not selfish, you are welcome to continue using my data
> like you always have, YOU and people just like you that don't have a
> spine to stand up to OSM-F and say no this is not the best thing to be
> doing so we can have a great map are the ones being selfish and
> choosing to opt out of better maps.
> You can stop with all the bullish language about being selfish, YOU by
> going along with everything and agreeing to such a disruptive change
> for little or no benefit are purely to blame for the state of afairs
> and you have no one else to blame but yourself.
> You say you want a great map, I say bullshit, you had one and you
> can't get rid of it quick enough.
More information about the talk