[OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage
toby.murray at gmail.com
Sun Jan 15 17:34:52 GMT 2012
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/15/2012 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> On 01/15/2012 05:03 PM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
>>> in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
>>> change so far...
>>> i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.
>> I'm happy to debate the issue on legal-talk.
> I'm sure you are. But it doesn't belong there, since it's several times
> removed from legal matters.
> Here's another issue I have:
> Ungoodmapper joins two ways.
> Goodmapper sees that all that happened was a joining, he would have done it
> anyway, and tags odbl=clean on the joined way. (Alternately, Ungoodmapper's
> attribution could have been lost through joins and splits.)
> Now the license change goes through, and the OSMF doesn't touch the joined
> way. But in reverting Ungoodmapper's edits, the OSMF undeletes the other way
> that was joined. So now we have two overlapping ways.
> I see no way to avoid this. If the OSMF doesn't undelete anything deleted by
> ungood mappers, the damage is much greater.
According to this, deletions will not be reverted:
I have been using the odbl=clean tag in a pretty similar way as you
propose along the interstates in Kansas. Since the decliner last
touched them, I have traveled along most of them 2-3 times and each
time I have added more detail from direct observation plus improving
geometry and splitting out more bridges and such. The contributions by
the armchair mapping decliner consisted of splitting ways for bridges
and adding obvious tags like ref so I am confident the data would have
ended up in an identical state if they had never touched it. I removed
any obvious node additions by the decliner and re-improved the
geometry from Bing and my own GPS traces and then added an odbl=clean
More information about the talk