[OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process

[Eric Marsden]

>>>>> "rf" == Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> writes:

  rf> Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here.
  rf> You state that it's better to cite "how much data would be deleted".
  rf> However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you
  rf> quote, um, the number of users, not the amount of data.
  rf> 
  rf> Reading odbl.de, although "60% of users" in Europe have accepted the new
  rf> contributor terms, that actually equates to between 80% and 92% of nodes,
  rf> and between 70% and 93% of ways. In North America, your "40% of users" is
  rf> 54%-94% of nodes, and 66-85% of ways.[1]

  Hello Richard,

  It's quite simple: I object to the OSMF using what I consider to be
  very misleading statistics in communication on the ODBL process.
  Michael Collinson's message can be interpreted as saying that 0.2% of
  users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. I point out that a
  more reasonable way of presenting the data is that between 40 and 55%
  (depending on the region) of users haven't accepted the new
  contributor terms.

  I then argue that the most important statistic in deciding whether to
  go ahead with the big delete is how much data would be removed.
  odbl.de indicates (for Europe) 80% of nodes, 70% of ways, 50% of
  relations -- much lower for other areas such as Australia or the USA
  --- are at version 1 with a user having accepted the CT. As you point
  out, this is a lower bound on the amount of data that would be
  retained, since objects with a version > 1 and only CT-accepting users
  would also be retained.

  There used to be a map at http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/
  highlighting how much data would be retained, but it seems to have
  disappeared.


  On a related note concerning the process, I find it unreasonable for
  OSMF to ask people to accept the new CT without having first decided
  on a tolerability threshold on loss of data.

-- 
Eric Marsden