[OSM-talk] Splitting a way may completely hide a taint

[Russ Nelson]

Nathan Edgars II writes:
 > On 12/21/2011 8:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 > > Sounds like a policy decision to me - you can either be too cautious or
 > > too careful but probably never do it exactly right.
 > And we really need to know how the OSMF is treating these common cases 
 > before we start the process of minimizing damage.

I think it's fair to actively take steps to un-taint something if
you're re-creating it from almost nothing.

 >  > Policies should be discussed on legal-talk.
 > Why? They have nothing to do with legal considerations.

I agree. Everyone needs to know these things.

Oh, and, could we convince r_coastlines to accept the license? I've
put a LOT of work into fixing the coastlines (which were utter CRAP in
the first place), and I'm unenthusiastic about having them
lost. OSMInspector is reporting the wrong thing, by the way. Look at
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753612 and you'll see a bunch
of nodes, only two supposedly touched by me. Yet if you click on any
node, say 
http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=18666667 or
http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=18666670 you'll see that I've
touched them.

Basically, the only thing left out of r_coastline's creation is
"source=PGS" which by now any sourcing has been completely
eliminated. I've edited A LOTTA LOTTA coastlines of New York State in
a similar manner.

Easiest fix is for r_coastlines to accept.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog