[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Steve Coast steve at asklater.com
Thu Jul 7 15:09:49 BST 2011


FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons.

The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible 
when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive 
data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items.

Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely 
to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been 
successful.

Steve


On 7/7/2011 7:01 AM, 80n wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey 
> <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less
>     the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data
>     resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we
>     should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming
>     we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data
>     behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm.
>
>
> The probability of collisions is quite small in practice.  We are able 
> to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org <http://fosm.org> 
> in near real time.  Consequenly fosm.org <http://fosm.org> already has 
> more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen.  It will 
> become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all 
> non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon.
>
> The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with 
> an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database.  In 
> this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the 
> fosm edit.
>
> Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both 
> OSM and fosm independently.  This will result in the feature being 
> duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts 
> when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one.
>
> My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed 
> content in OSM with inferior quality tracing.  This will appear as 
> legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm 
> being degraded needlessly.  We've talked about mechanisms for watching 
> areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this.  
> We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing 
> we notice that it has happened.
>
> 80n
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20110707/34481d63/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list