[OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ben Last wrote:
>> In particular ODbL+CT will require a contractual relationship
>> (i.e.  the contributor terms) between OSMF and the user. If
 >> you are not exposing the user to the sign-up process, they
 >> are not agreeing to this contract.
> No, they're agreeing to terms and conditions with us.  We (NearMap)
> are agreed to the terms and conditions with OSM, and submit the edits,
> as NearMap, to OSM.  We're not trying to do some sort of back-to-back
> legal framework; that would never work.  The edits come from NearMap.

The major problem arises when, for example, a NearMap user starts 
correcting 300 street names using Google Maps as a source 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/blocks/10); or they make a whole bunch of 
fictitious "corrections" a la Charlie Sheen Highway 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/blocks/19).

There are procedures for when an actual OSM user does this - both 
organisational procedures and code written specially for the purpose. 
But it's a whole lot harder when there's an intermediary involved. We 
can't message the user to say "this is against the terms & conditions 
you signed up to" when they signed up to something else, and besides, 
they're behind a proxy so they're not messageable anyway.

The Data Working Group could in theory block the NearMap account every 
time this happens, and this would indeed be the standard way of sorting 
this out, given that it's the responsibility of the user (i.e. NearMap) 
to modify their behaviour. But I guess that wouldn't be something that 
appeals to you. :)

> [e-mailing OSMF]
> Glad to.  Can you provide a way to contact someone there who'd be
> willing to have the conversation?

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Groups

I'd suggest you e-mail the Data Working Group (data at osmfoundation.org) 
as a first port of call.

> [tracing]
> I would
> think that the OSM position would be that it's not worth the *risk* to
> trace without it being clear that the licence allows it, since if it
> turned out that your opinion is wrong, that would lead to data loss.

Yes, absolutely. cf the "Big Important Disclaimer" bit at the start of 
the blog post (in red and everything!).

cheers
Richard