[Talk-GB] Remapping update
osm at raggedred.net
Fri Mar 23 13:27:12 GMT 2012
On 23/03/12 13:14, Andy Allan wrote:
> On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg<Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Incidentally, is just "knowing the footpaths" evidence enough to tag with
>> "odbl=clean"? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with "iffy"
> "Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions
> from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...]
> *and where those contributions have since been superceded or "washed
> out" by subsequent changes*"
> Emphasis mine.
> So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just "clean it" by
> adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that
> absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version,
> and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node
> tagged "amenity = pub", that happens to have been moved, the tag
> removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction.
> Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the
> tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it,
> and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I
> don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if
> it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging
> anything with it.
More information about the Talk-GB