[OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/15/2011 02:58 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> So what here will be reverted by the OSMF? Obviously node 250413743
> needs to be replaced by another node in the same general location. But
> other than that, is everything tainted because it was split from a
> tainted way? Or is nothing else tainted because no data from the orange
> or red users remains? If the latter, do I need to do anything special to
> ensure that the OSMF does not delete it? If the former, exactly what
> needs to be remapped to prevent deletion?

There are several aspects to this.

One is the real legal situation (assuming that a legal "truth" exists - 
most lawyers will probably laugh at the assumption).

The second is what OSMF believes the legal situation is, and what amount 
of risk they are willing to take. (We can never be absolutely totally 
clean because people might make absurd-sounding claims like "that road 
is really a derived work of the pub I placed there..." or so.)

The third is what I believe OSMF to be likely to do, and what I 
therefore display on the OSM Inspector layer. Of course the Inspector 
layer is most useful if it resembles as closely as possible the future 
OSMF decision.

It has been explained already but I'll repeat it - OSMF/LWG has not yet 
decided what they will do with regards to the finer points of complex 
object relicensing. This means that none of your questions above has an 
answer. And OSMF is not going to decide this behind closed doors without 
looking out; they'll take a cue or two from what we do. And they are not 
going to decide it within the next few days either so don't hold your 
breath.

Personally I believe that complex situations like the one you describe 
above will have to be investigated by a community member - like you did 
-, and that person should (if possible) take the necessary steps to 
clean up the situation and then vouch for it (saying, effectively, 
"these objects are OK, I've checked them, believe me").

OSMF could then concentrate on producing some advice for the community 
members doing that kind of work, and making some spot checks to see if 
thy do it with the diligence required of the job.

Ideally, those community members would not be the same people that 
proclaim the use of "loop holes" on the mailing lists ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"