[Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com
Wed Jun 6 20:13:10 BST 2012

On 6 June 2012 09:07, Steve All <steveall at softworkers.com> wrote:
>>  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.

I was referring to the post at the beginning of this thread.  You're
right that the redaction algorithm is being created at this time so
it's hard to know what it's going to look like.  However it's quite
clear that a plain revert of all "tainted" edits would produce a
(mostly) clean dataset and I believe that is the baseline assumption
for the redaction algorithm.  From there all the work happening is
done to minimize the damage, make it better than a plain automatic
revert if possible.

So all I'm saying is that a plain revert of the edits is not going to
produce better results than just doing nothing, because the redaction
algorithm is likely to do a job that's at least as good.  On top of
that the definition of what is tainted is still changing (there are
places where the current "definition" as written on the wiki gives an
almost opposite effect to what is intended -- incompatible data would
be preserved and compatible data removed).

Replacing data with TIGER 2011 roads might be a better idea but it's
orthogonal to the license change, it can be done before as well as
after the change.


More information about the Talk-us mailing list