[Talk-GB] Remapping update

Craig Loftus craigloftus+osm at googlemail.com
Sat Mar 24 16:10:16 GMT 2012

> *and where those contributions have since been superceded or "washed
> out" by subsequent changes*"

I think people understand this is important, but the wording is so
vague and examples of appropriate usage given on the list vary wildly.
The example you gave still allows for IP to be present in the history
of the node... *shrug*

To try and clear things up, for myself at least, can I get comment on
some contrived examples of practice I have used and I've seen used by
others? All non-odbl nodes in the examples below are deleted or no
longer existed. Most ways I've come across no longer have any
positional IP from the original creator. When commenting, please do
explain why they differ from accepted practice.

== A ==
Way V1:


Way Vn:

electrified = contact_line
frequency = 50
gauge = 1435
passenger = yes
source:electrified = observation
tracks = 4
usage = main
voltage = 25000
odbl=clean - presence of railway checked against recent Bing and OS

== B ==

name=Garden Street


name=Garden Street
maxspeed=20 mph
name=Garden Street
name=Garden Street
odbl=clean - 'notional' deletion of name attribute and re-naming with
StreetView or Locator sources

== C ==



name=Oxford By-pass
odbl=clean - IP exists in history but all attributes over-written

If someone rejects all those uses, then basically every odbl tag I've
added is incorrect and all those I've happened upon as well. My next
request will be for an admin to revert about 100 changesets *weeps*

This will be all the more annoying because I thought I was being
careful; I read the documentation, read examples from multiple
posters, looked at the history of every way I touched, and actually
spent quite a bit of time re-mapping many ways I came across.


On 23 March 2012 13:14, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> 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"
>> sources?
> "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 *and where those contributions have since been superceded or "washed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.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean
> 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.
>> I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the
>> Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually
>> walk the paths again or just tag with "odbl=clean"
> You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other
> techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you
> know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight
> through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely.
> Cheers,
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list