[talk-au] Splitter decliners

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Tue Jan 10 09:48:24 GMT 2012

Hi Nick and all continuing mappers,

To be fair, it also works the other way around, a road and the 
information contributed by a decliner is split and randomly one half is 
then "clean" and it is difficult to quantatively judge whether the 
information value carried over was also known independently by the new 
accepting contributor. However, in Australia the overwhelming case does 
seem to be as you describe.

I wonder if the solution is to revert contributions by specific declined 
users who have clearly indicated that they will never accept the new 
terms, or at least specific changesets by them? This would deal with the 
maxspeed issue as I think Nick is suggesting in another thread and the 
missing street names.  I believe, but will double check, that it will 
also simply put back the splits. I also want to check what happens when 
an accepting user has subsequently made changes over the top.  With 
these caveats aside, what do you and continuing contributors think? 
Nick, is this something you would personally handle or should we ask the 
guys in the data working group? What should the list consist of?

User JohnSmith is an obvious candidate to resolve maxspeed.  For me as a 
personal mapper, user Franc has made many such splits in my Sydney 
mapping area, for very constructive reasons but has clearly stated he 
will not accept the new terms. As probably the worst devil the OSMF has 
in terms of promoting license re-organisation and the way of going about 
it, I am though very, very hesitant to push the issue without clear 
discussion by and consensus of continuing mappers. It is great to be 
able to finally talk without being told that everything ever suggested 
must be a priori wrong, wrong, wrong ... but I fully understand that I 
ain't necessarily right either.


On 10/01/2012 08:17, Nick Hocking wrote:
> If a decliner splits a ,mappers road then he/she becomes the version 1
> owner of that mappers copyrightable information for the rest of the way.
> I think it's morally (maybe even legally) wrong for the decliner to now
> extinguish this copyright by refusing to relicence it.
> Since I think it unlikely that they see things as I do, I think it would
> be good if we could find all such occurrences in the OSM database and
> list out the original owner so that they could reclaim their copyright.
> Maybe we could.....
> If two ways with the same name are geographically close but not touching
> then list out the version 1 owners, lat/lon and name.
> (only if exactly one of the two version 1 owners is a decliner.)
> Unfortunately this wouldn't cover the cases where the decliner has done
> a single split, thus taking over the way, or where he has split the
> way, discarded the front bit and then back filled from the split.
> The first example of the last case that I've noticed is in Sydney but
> fortunately I have surveyed that particular area myself so I can reclaim
> the mappers information using my own data.
> Cheers
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120110/d308b783/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list