[OSM-talk] Potlatch and the destruction of good work (N6 Ireland)

Dermot McNally dermotm at gmail.com
Wed Aug 8 22:46:01 BST 2007

On 08/08/2007, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:

> The situation (as unfortunate as it is) is that I have no authority
> to release that information, and indeed under UK data protection laws
> it would quite likely be illegal to do so.

I understand that. One option (for my selfish purpose) would be for
you to contact the mapper and urge him/her to contact me, but that
would set a precedent that would make you the correspondence secretary
for a whole bunch of us and I'm not sure I'd want that if I were in
your shoes :-)

> I'm all for that, but it isn't something we can retrospectively
> force onto existing mappers without their consent.

After the first incident, it was suggested on this thread (by
Frederik?) that a process of migration would offer a route to a better
place. This would essentially involve:

1. All newly-registering mappers will not have the option of private edits.

2. All existing mappers would be urged to migrate their settings to
reveal their username (just enough info to make them contactable).

3. Possible review of exactly how public public edits are (to address
any legitimate privacy concerns of existing mappers that may be
reluctant to migrate). One item that had arisen in this context was
the connection of uploaded track logs with a visible username.

4. After an elapsed time TBD, disable the accounts of any mappers not
yet exposing their usernames (or disable their edits until they

Alternatively (and more easily, assuming it doesn't seem to be in
conflict with DP laws):

Allow users to continue to maks their user ID, but modify the contact
infrastructure to allow messages to be sent by other mappers to those
anonymous mappers. This mechanism would not expose the anonymous
mappers' usernames, unless they chose to respond to such messages
(this would be at their own discretion, but obviously a mapper, like
the one I'm trying to identify, acting in good faith will probably not
object to such one-on-one contact).

Perhaps a method for the secretive mappers to reply anonymously would
also be necessary, but why implement that until we know we need it.

I still prefer the phased migration to accountability, but obviously
that's not my decision to make.


More information about the talk mailing list