[OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
David Groom
reviews at pacific-rim.net
Thu Dec 15 11:40:16 GMT 2011
----- Original Message -----
From: "Toby Murray" <toby.murray at gmail.com>
To: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in
determining tainted ways
> Yeah, a healthy chunk of the interstates in Kansas are the same way. I
> didn't go quite as deep as Nathan but this way is a relevant example:
> http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=33576021
>
> User "moonwashed" created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way.
> He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by
> agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page
> doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single
> node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it.
But do you know what the source was for moving each node? As has been said
earlier, if each node was simply moved by a tiny amount away from the
position created by moonwashed, and the new position of the node was not
determined by reference to some other source (Bing or GPS maybe), then the
new nodes are derived form moonwashes edits
> So in my mind
> there is no information left in that way that is attributable to the
> declining user.
Not necessarily true. You can only state that when you know for sure what
the basis was for moving each node
David
>I would have absolutely no misgivings doing a straight
> copy/paste to replace that way with an identical duplicate. But I
> would rather not do so out of respect to the other CT-accepting users
> who have contributed to that object.
>
> Saying that it is up to the community to decide individual objects is
> nice but I don't think there is enough time for me to evaluate every
> tainted object in Kansas before April 1 and there sure as hell isn't
> enough of a community here to help me with such a thankless task.
> There are a few mappers in the area but if I asked them to deal with
> this kind of stuff, I'm pretty sure they would run away screaming. I
> doubt I can expect much outside help either since pretty much everyone
> is affected and will be working in their own area first.
>
> And as long as there is no official word from the foundation about
> exactly how this change will be technically executed, we can't really
> proceed in a meaningful way anyway except from trying to contact
> non-responsive users, which I am doing. So as much as I really don't
> really care about the license and am happy to relicense under ODbL and
> even think it might be a good move, I do have some serious doubts
> about the ambiguity of the process this late in the process...
>
> Toby
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2011 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2011 04:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So why have people been recommending for months that we remap tainted
>>>> objects when we still don't know what needs to be remapped?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you prefer to wait until the exact rules are laid out for you, that's
>>> your choice.
>>
>> Yes, I prefer only doing a make-work task once.
>>
>>
>>> Personally I'd rather make a few educated guesses and get
>>>
>>> to work now.
>>
>> By my educated reasoning, anything from one node to the entire road is
>> tainted, so it's a little hard to make a guess.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
More information about the talk
mailing list