[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-dev] To OSM editor authors

[Ian Sergeant]

On 8 April 2011 05:47, John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com> wrote:

> It wouldn't be nearly so bad if we could simply agree to the new terms for
> objects outside Nearmap coverage (and for future contributions), but have
> our "contaminated" work removed.

Well our first priority should be to try and get an agreement with
Nearmap.  Hopefully to allow use of their imaging ongoing, but if that
turns out not to be possible to hope that they may just allow existing
work to be kept.

In the unfortunate eventuality that Nearmap derived data has to be
removed from the main OSM trunk, then we will need a few tools to do
this effectively.  I'm sure a tool along the lines of what you have
suggested is technically feasible.

But as I previously said, we are going to have to claw some positivity
back if we are going to maintain OSM as a useful data set if the
licence/contributor terms change is forced.  Given the effort put into
the mapping of these areas, I think it is worth a bit more a bit more
to keep as much data as possible intact.  I don't want to sit by and
watch it dissolve.

Ian.