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

Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Tue Apr 17 08:22:31 BST 2012


At 2012-04-16 20:41, Toby Murray wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
> >> At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >>> Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
> >>> object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
> >>> something you would have done anyway).
> >> Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment?
> >> Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
> >> (in good faith) adding this tag?
> > We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use.
>
>Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this
>statement is a little over dramatic.
>
>First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored.
>...

On nodes as well as ways? As I wrote earlier, if I have tagged a way with a 
source that includes imagery, and removed the tiger:reviewed=no tag, it 
means I have aligned it to that imagery, including leaving nodes that are 
in the correct place alone (sometimes). Can I bless the nodes in the same way?


>Also there is this:
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F

A nice empty page. Tough to argue with :)


>And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm
>not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the
>matter:
>https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change

Nor can you reasonably expect people to use this as a guideline. And I'm a 
programmer.


>There has been talk of the "v0 rule" which I believe is being
>implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object
>by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was
>created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else
>added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it,
>the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an
>accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be
>clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's
>nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go
>too since you can't have a zero-node way.

I contend, though, that you should not have to change a node to make it 
clean. If one has tagged a source with an imagery (or GPS) value, they are 
saying that they vouch for the position of the way, including its nodes. 
Same applies to removing tiger:reviewed=no (or gnis:reviewed=no). The user 
is specifically claiming to have reviewed the position and tagging and 
approved it. Should that not be sufficient?


>Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these
>rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are
>some facts to be had.

Why, then, is it acceptable for us to be sitting here with a dagger hanging 
over our heads, uncertain as to when and how it will fall? Shouldn't all of 
this be nailed down, followed by a reasonable notice period? Why is there a 
deadline other than "we need to get it done for the long-term benefit of OSM?"

--
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>




More information about the Talk-us mailing list