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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Marc Liotier" <jm at liotier.org>
To: <talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in 
determining tainted ways


> On 15/12/2011 12:40, David Groom wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Toby Murray" <toby.murray at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM
>>> 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
> But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to 
> improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the 
> source tag - i.e. from "Yahoo low resolution satellite" to "Microsoft Bing 
> satellite". Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't 
> it be considered a break from being a derivative ?
>
Yes it should be considred a break, because in that case you know what the 
source for moving the nodes was.

What I was pointing out is that you have to know the source used when moving 
the nodes, before you can determine if the new position is derived from the 
old one

David
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>