[Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?

Samuel Longiaru longiaru at shaw.ca
Tue Jun 7 22:34:44 BST 2011


Hate to jump in where it's not wanted but...

Just wondering if there is some kind of middle ground solution here.
John clearly does not feel comfortable with having his imports in the
database and so has removed them.  Not something we would like to see
happen too often, but it has happened.

Is it possible to restore his original imports and the subsequent edits
by others, but do so using another account name so that John's is not
associated with the data?  I would think that this should meet John's
desire to have his name removed from the data, and from our perspective,
could constitute a "new" import.  In this case, I would think that John
could take some comfort in knowing that he did what he felt he needed to
do... namely remove the data that he did not feel comfortable with
anymore... for whatever reason.  We could then restore the data without
having to do through the painstaking process of reimporting from a
CanVec source and re-edit.  It would simply be an import under another
account.

Changing the licensing mid-stream is bound to cause some issues.... many
of which will be totally unforeseen.  There has to some kind of
reasonable solution here.  

Thanks,

Sam


-----Original Message-----
From: john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
To: Richard Weait <richard at weait.com>
Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Ping John Whelan?
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:12:24 -0400

To recap:

The objective of moving to ODBL is to give a stronger legal position for
the database.  This position can be undermined if any included data has
not been directly created by a mapper in the field.

In my edits I have included at least one bus stop from GTFS data, I
don't have the rights to license it under CC-by-ODBL.  At the time it
was done my expectation was that this information would become available
under CC-by-SA in the short term this has not happened.

I have included information from a source that had other information on
it.  Not a major crime but it is technically a breach of copyright.

The two paragraphs above basically undermine any legal case that OSM
would have concerning Ottawa data unless the data is removed when
brought to your attention which is why I haven't specifically mentioned
them before.  Note it has now been brought to your attention and the
responsibility for the integrity of the database is now yours if you
choose not to accept the deletions.  There are probably a few other
instances in there somewhere.

I have requested that my CT status be reverted.  I have tried to request
that my change sets / data be removed and I have manually deleted the
suspect data which I think is all I can reasonably do.  If you revert
the deleting edits then you undermine the legal case for protecting the
OSM database.

If my CT status was reverted then the older data would be deleted in
time by OSM.  I saw a post to that effect recently from Frederick in a
reply to some one who mentioned they couldn't accept the new CT.  That
and Fredrick's comment that people were deleting data that wasn't added
under the new CT triggered the decision to remove the data I had added
to the project.  Basically the sooner its done the less impact it will
have.  Leave it around and others will edit it so their edits get lost
as well.

There has been some discussion that I think you are aware of within OSM
about imports.  Basically the new CT is not import friendly.  As a
contributor you are responsible for the data you add to the project.
This includes ensuring that only data that meets the licensing can be
included.  I don't think anyone can say what the license in future will
be changed to or even if it will be changed.  Essentially this means I
cannot give an undertaking to CANVEC that OSM license will be compatible
and acceptable in the future when I don't know what that license will
be.

OSM I think is changing to be a map that is done by people on the ground
with GPS devices.  That's fine, I have surveyed and added a number of
footpaths and I'm more than happy to add them to the  project.

I think if you look at Google you'll see imported bus stops.  I don't
think OSM will ever be reliable enough for people to use it for bus
stops unless they are imported.  In North America today I think
regretfully Google and Bing have essentially won when we look at what
people use.  

OSM is a very niche product.  It happens to be one I personally like
very much.  The Ottawa map I have hosted in Google documents using
Maperitive is still the only one I know of where you can find WLAN
locations that are wheelchair accessible and the data is searchable.

To protect the OSM database I think you have to remove my edits.  I'll
add the footpaths etc that have been manually surveyed back in later.

Thanks

Cheerio John




On 7 June 2011 13:24, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
        On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM, john whelan
        <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
        > I would be extremely happy to see all my edits removed.
        
        
        
        Earlier you said that you were happy to have your surveyed data
        included in OSM under CT/ODbL, but you wanted Canvec data you
        uploaded
        removed.
        
        Now you say, "I would be extremely happy to see all my edits
        removed. "
        
        Which is it?
        
        
        
        _______________________________________________
        Talk-ca mailing list
        Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
        http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
        


_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20110607/696a2304/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-ca mailing list