[Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

John F. Eldredge john at jfeldredge.com
Sun Apr 15 01:26:24 BST 2012

andrzej zaborowski <balrogg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> > One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some
> cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to
> match the real world.  So, in order to make the cleanup bot not
> consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map
> data less accurate than it had formerly been.
> >
> It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and
> consider it untainted.  So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially
> put the OSM Foundation under legal risk.
> This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a
> Really Bad Idea.  It is both more time costly and it is provoking
> users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license
> change, often unconsciously.  See all the ideas of using the
> incompatible IP to create the new "compatible IP", such as using the
> tainted coastlines data to remap small islands.  (RichardF said he
> does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he
> disagrees with or why)
> Cheers

I was assuming that there was an additional data source, such as aerial photos and/or GPS traces, which could be used to judge the accuracy of the tainted node.  As I understand the way the bot judges taintedness, if you delete a tainted node, then insert a replacement node in the same location, the new node is also considered tainted even though it was added by someone who agreed to the new license terms, and even though that might be the correct location to mark the corner of a polygon.

John F. Eldredge --  john at jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

More information about the Talk-us mailing list