[OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
mike at ayeltd.biz
Sat Jan 28 15:04:40 GMT 2012
I certainly support your sentiment but I suggest 99% is too high.
We have, in rounded figures, 1,200M nodes in the database. 
Here are just three decliners  who definitely are not going to agree
in any form, have very high proportions of imported nodes and which
WTFE is also certainly marking all or most for removal. I've also added
in old anon contributions as we've probably already reached all those we
argath 7 025 025 100% POI import as far as I am aware
ABS2006 2 498 993 100% boundary import
anon edits 560 467 (may be too high as some previous anon
mappers have actually agreed)
h4ck3rm1k3 348 274 High but unknown import proportion in a
geographically concentrated area
This gives 10.4M nodes or roughly 0.86% of the entire database. Add in a
few other smaller and harder to quantise examples from around the world
and that is the one percent right there.
Caveat: I have done nodes because it is easiest, an analysis of highway
ways might be better for the standard you are suggesting.
There is a trade-off. The longer we leave it the more unproductive
over-editing occurs and many folks in problematic areas are not going to
map what appears to be already there.
I'd certainly like to see these examples removed right now if the
respective communities agree. But that is only rational if we have
consensus that critical mass is here.
On 27/01/2012 21:19, LM_1 wrote:
> I would have higher standard for critical mass, definitely over 99 %.
> There should be a prolonged (at least one year) period where it is
> known what data can remain and what cannot to allow seamless switch.
> Having two months to the planned switch and still not knowing the
> exact algorithm to determine what stays seems just stupid.
> Lukas (LM_1)
> 2012/1/27 Michael Collinson<mike at ayeltd.biz>:
More information about the talk