[Talk-GB] Re-mapping : Are these two ways both valid ?

[Bogus Zaba]

I posted this to a recent thread, but was unanswered possibly because 
all those involved thought it was over and done with. I could still do 
with an answer though.

Sorry to ask such a naive sounding question in this thread where there 
are clearly many involved who know *a lot" about the subject, but I am 
left rather unsure about what we mean when we say that we need to do 
some "re-mapping" of nodes and ways which are in danger of removal when 
only contributions from new licence acceptors is allowed in the OSM 
database.

Seems to be one of two processes (in order of decreasing level of effort 
required):

1. Delete the features contributed by the non-acceptor. Replace with 
brand new feature from either gps survey or from acceptable 
imagery/mapping sources or combination. If I understand correctly then 
if the non-acceptor is the author of version 1 of the feature, then this 
will result in loss of all subsequent history as well, so that we will 
essentially have version 1 of a new feature and no trace of the previous 
feature.

2. Review the history of the feature. Decide if, even though the 
original contribution was from a non-acceptor, enough has been done by 
other licence-accepting contributors that the feature no longer belongs 
to the original contributor. If this is the case, tag with "odbl=clean" 
and forget about it.

My question is : Are both of these approaches acceptable from a 
legal/ethical perspective and will they both work (ie will both result 
in features that will make it into the database following Apr 1st?

For features in my local area (NE Wales) I and others with local 
knowledge could clearly follow either or both of these approaches, but 
(2) is obviously less time-consuming and preserves much more of other 
people's hard work.

Bogus Zaba