[OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)

[Peter Wendorff]

Hi Mike.
Am 05.05.2011 06:59, schrieb Mike Dupont:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Serge Wroclawski<emacsen at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Frederik Ramm<frederik at remote.org>  wrote:
>> I've thought about this myself; would it be better to have separate,
>> smaller instances of OSM, the way Wikipedia does.
> I think it would make sense to have many layers of data, each with its
> own source rules (on layer for each major import, a tiger layer for
> example)
> and also each layer would have its own license. Also you can split
> these layers by country if needed.
> You should be able to manage multiple layers in the database or have
> many databases. Basically OSM should be more open to different
> licenses and not try and push everything into one single licensed
> layer.
> The rendering my be slower in the end, but you can have multiple
> transparent layers that you can turn on and off.
I think, the idea is a good one, but there are a lot of problems, if you 
try to create that in practice.
Layering is a good idea, I think, but the tagging system we have even 
makes layering nearly impossible for the data we have.

Including a "Tiger layer" is good for editing, but not for using the data.
To use the data you have to either follow the licenses of all layers you 
use - and use a license working with all these siblicenses together, or 
you have to ignore some of the layers.

To edit the data: Where is the distinction?
If I resurvey a tiger-imported street and make a better one, I add the 
new version to another layer as I have another license in mind.
Which one to use for data consumers?
Isn't the "this way is deleted because of the new one in the other layer 
an act of vandalism?
> That is the option that I am looking into, I have gotten approval from
> the archive.org to host tiles on the 5 petabyte server of theirs. My
> idea is to manage multiple layers of data and update them there as
> needed.
Great to have several sources consumers can use; but I miss the benefit 
to create the kind of license-layers you propose, because it moves the 
problems of licensing more to the consumer, and solves nothing.

regards
Peter