[Rebuild] Update on progress

[Toby Murray]

I have made contact with blars. He doesn't see ODbL as a huge step
forward but isn't entirely opposed to it. He is absolutely opposed to
the future relicensing clause in the new CT so I don't really see much
hope for dialog there. I also asked if he would be willing to allow
objects updated by someone else since he touched them to be relicensed
but did not get a response to that part of my email.

Toby


On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> We have always understood that there will be local issues and have worked
> hard to resolve them. The Western USA looks very good [1] but not the
> greater LA area [2]. Clicking around this seems to exclusively due to one
> undecided contributor blars [3]. This seems the sole issue. So, can we help?
> You appear to know the person and the objection. May I ask you to share that
> on or off-line?  Despite messages sent, he/she has not contacted us at all
> to my knowledge. Never too late.
>
> Mike
> LWG
>
> [1] Western USA:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-116.28223&lat=41.20676&zoom=5&opacity=0.99&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_inrelation,wtfe_line_inrelation_cp,wtfe_line_inrelation,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created
>
> [2] LA area:
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-118.11969&lat=33.91054&zoom=10&opacity=0.83&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_inrelation,wtfe_line_inrelation_cp,wtfe_line_inrelation,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created
>
> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/blars
>
>
> On 19/04/2012 11:13, Alan Mintz wrote:
>>
>> At 2012-04-18 09:36, Richard Weait wrote:
>>>
>>> If you
>>> have specific, real world data example that you think will make
>>> interesting test cases, please present them on the rebuild list.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about interesting, but this chunk of the Los Angeles-area
>> city of Glendale has plenty of potential data loss: minlat='34.1'
>> minlon='-118.3' maxlat='34.2' maxlon='-118.2'
>>
>> According to JOSM and the licensing plugin:
>>
>> <pre>
>>                        Ways            Nodes
>> Total objects           3912            35909
>> Data Loss               1013 (26%)      4734 (13%)
>> Possible Data Loss      582 (15%)       2133 (6%)
>> </pre>
>>
>> Here's a pic of part of this area in JOSM now:
>> https://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/GlendalePre.jpg?attredirects=0
>> and here's a pic after deleting the ways and nodes in the "Data Loss"
>> category of the license change plugin:
>> https://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/GlendalePost.jpg?attredirects=0
>>
>> I think I speak for all locals when I say this is an unacceptable amount
>> of loss. If you look at the Geofabrik maps, you will see that this is
>> basically what's going to happen to the whole Los Angeles area. Is that
>> really acceptable - to have a fairly important city of the world become
>> completely unusable in the map? A large part of it (is there a tool to see
>> how much?) is because of the inability of the LWG (or whoever) to find a way
>> for the contributions of a single mapper (you know who it is, or can easily
>> see) to be licensable. As I understand it, his objection is not
>> unreasonable, and I can see ways in which a mutually acceptable solution
>> could be found, too (as it was for balrog-kun and DaveHansen TIGER).
>>
>>
>>> Once the tests are passing on the expanded test data, the schedule
>>> will return to the previously announced phases; Limited bounding box
>>> tests, larger test areas, then the rest of the planet.  Those phases
>>> will be announced with as much notice as possible, consistent with
>>> progressing with limited delay.  You can appreciate that both of those
>>> are desirable while also being in tension with each other.
>>
>>
>> Sure, except that most of us do not understand the weight that "limited
>> delay" has been given in this. I can certainly understand that those who are
>> working tirelessly on the redaction project want to see it done with so they
>> can get on with their lives, but at the same time, is it OK to (likely for
>> an indefinite period of time*) damage large, important** swaths of the map
>> by just charging ahead when we haven't had sufficient time to prevent it?
>>
>> The 3 days or so notice that was originally given for the server migration
>> (and the difference between what "read-only" ended up meaning and what most
>> inferred) was not enough when we thought that the redaction would proceed
>> immediately afterwards. I would encourage notice of at least one week, and
>> then subject to finding a reasonable solution to the data loss problem.
>>
>>
>>> We'll update rebuild weekly, until completion, even if only to say
>>> "still working on the tests".
>>
>>
>> Please and thank you!
>>
>>
>>> Watch the rebuild list or #osm IRC channel.[2]
>>
>>
>> I would encourage you to send it to the other lists (at least talk) as
>> well. IRC is not a reasonable signal/noise ratio for most of us.
>>
>>
>> Notes:
>> * As mentioned, we've already lost at least one huge contributor. If the
>> map will be as damaged as I think, I am as likely as not to go away, too, as
>> the project has not fulfilled its obligation to be a reasonable steward of
>> my (substantial) work. As much as some think there will be these huge crowds
>> of people wanting to map, this simply has not turned out to be the case. I
>> believe the map cannot be anywhere near usable without large contributors,
>> and we "don't grow on trees". All we ask is respect for our time - something
>> which has not been given us, regardless of intent.
>>
>> ** I don't mean to imply that any part of the world is more important to
>> humanity than any other part - simply that the number of people likely to
>> want to use a map of Los Angeles is larger than the number wanting to use a
>> map of smaller and/or less populous places. This is important to gaining any
>> sort of widespread support. I also see that much of Europe is in danger as
>> well, and this is perhaps even more important socially for areas that are
>> not well-mapped by other sources.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rebuild mailing list
>> Rebuild at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rebuild
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rebuild mailing list
> Rebuild at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rebuild