[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap
balrogg at gmail.com
Wed Jun 6 03:57:25 BST 2012
On 5 June 2012 20:56, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> But "socially," or more properly stated, in the context of "reaching OSM
> consensus," what does our community think of (rather wholesale) reverts of a
> contributor who has not agreed to the CT? Are we OK with that? Apologies
> if this is already clearly stated somewhere. But if so, I haven't seen it
> and it is high time we freshen up how/where we are about this.
Is it a pressing issue though? Mike N already said this, but the
license redaction algorithm is being designed to do no more damage
than a revert of the tainted edits, with the exception of undeletions
mentioned by NE2. So, by my understanding, the best you can get by
reverting edits is a state similar to that which you'll obtain by
doing nothing and moving on to actual useful mapping.
More information about the Talk-us