[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

Charlotte Wolter techlady at techlady.com
Wed Jun 6 17:18:53 BST 2012


Hello Steve and everyone,

         Actually, the license redaction algorithm is not opaque and 
mysterious to me. It's unknown to me.
         And how were we supposed to find out about it when there is 
no communication? That is the ongoing problem with the license change 
and OSM in general: no communication. No newsletters, no general 
emails, nothing to let people know what's happening. Email lists 
don't cut it for us mere mortals who find them overly geeky. How 
about some communication for the rest of us?

Charlotte


At 12:07 AM 6/6/2012, you wrote:
>>  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.
>
>>  andrzej replied:
>>  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.
>
>SteveA here:  Then I think what might make most sense is to point 
>Charlotte, me, and other readers of this list to Mike N's license 
>redaction algorithm thread.  I guess I missed that.
>
>Charlotte's original point (both echoed in her/this recent 
>thread-start and in another email she sent to me privately -- in 
>April or May?) that she finds the whole "license redaction 
>algorithm" (or whatever is going to happen) to be opaque and 
>mysterious, without any easy way to discover this, or know (well) 
>what to work around (blars' edits, for example) or not.  I tend to agree.
>
>I have used the JOSM revert changeset to good effect before, I know 
>that users like NE2 and others have the skill to write/wield/deploy 
>powerful scripts that "do" high-level crafted semantically-laser 
>beam effects.  But these might be more in the open and transparent, 
>so that we (lowly and middle-level users, if I must be so crass as 
>to put it like that) can see these things as up-and-coming, and move 
>on to important things.
>
>Indeed, Charlotte asks:
>>  Perhaps some who know JOSM could take a look at the most recent 
>> uploads by "blars" to see what the
>>  effect of reverting those changes would be.
>
>When in fact, she (and I, and all users in OSM, really) simply want 
>to know:  is some "magic" smart-bot going to auto-magically "fix" 
>the license problems, or should I keep working based off of BADMAP 
>to get rid of non CT-user edits?  If so, can such efforts come out 
>of the shadows (please?!) so "most OSMers" can best focus our efforts?
>
>Keep up the dialog,
>
>SteveA
>California
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techlady at techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady

The Four Internet Freedoms
Freedom to visit any site on the Internet
Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal
Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network
Freedom to know all the terms of a service, particularly any that 
would affect the first three freedoms.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20120606/7878b7dc/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list