[OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +0000
Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly "tainted" node which
> has both been moved and stripped of any "tainted" tags would also be
> considered clean. Is this so

Yes.

> 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as
> a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds
> cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper "cleans" the object by removing this
> tag. Time passes...
> 
> Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds
> back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now?

Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing
mapper adding "cuisine=pizza", the agreeing mapper "cleaning" the
object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of
telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true
remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't
see an easy way out.

> > * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as
> > harmless if these nodes are not present any more in the current
> > version of the way
> 
> Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the
> non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right?

Yes.

These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make
tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means
that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted
again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the
cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or
maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their
changeset comment saying "all edits in this changeset are remapping
from original sources", or we could even say: Whenever the changeset
has a source tag we consider this to be original sources...

Bye
Frederik