[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
isergean at hih.com.au
Tue Jan 31 00:02:22 GMT 2012
LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com> wrote on 31/01/2012 10:41:00 AM:
> If API is not changed to serve the cleaned version of data, it would
> be good to have at least some editor-side tool to revert selected
> object to the clean state and then repair/edit it as it should be.
Every time I see this mentioned, I feel compelled to agree. If the nonCT
data is going to be deleted anyway, then we need an editor/API/script tool
to allow this to be done in a controlled manner over a localised area, as
small as a single way. If there is an object editing by multiple people,
new edits should be able to build on the last CT compliant version of the
With the current technology available, examining a single "orange" way
with many revisions can be a complex and time consuming activity in
Failing this, a nomination process where bounding boxes can be submitted
for processing, barring another party objecting?
> In my original suggestion I said that this period (remapping what has
> to be deleted while still serving data under CC-BY-SA) should take a
> year or two - as long as needed till all the field in
> http://odbl.poole.ch/ show 99% or more. The time pressure is a false
> one, there has not really been any argument why it is important to
> change the licence fast.
Reasons to change the licence slow? As as you say - we can ensure every
area is revisited and resurveyed, so the impact can be kept small.
Reasons to change the licence fast? Because editors are still changing
nonCT objects - information is still being added to the map every day that
is going to be deleted. Bad enough we are losing the nonCT data, worse
that we should risk losing new CT data. Also, there are editors hanging
back until the deed is done, and we need to start on the community
rebuilding and put this behind us. And lastly, editing in a sea of red,
orange and green ways is just no fun, we need to get back to a green map
where we can edit without looking at the history of every object.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk