[OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage

[Floris Looijesteijn]

in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
change so far...

i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.

greets,
floris looijesteijn

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there's been no response, I plan to start doing this.
>
> On 1/13/2012 6:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>
>> It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
>> OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
>> it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case:
>>
>> A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to
>> secondary, using essentially an algorithmic approach (a certain subset
>> of the state highway system).
>> Several years later, I go through and create relations for these routes,
>> as well as demoting some of the less-major ones to tertiary.
>>
>> If the mass-revert were to go forward now, those that I changed would
>> remain tertiary, while those I didn't would go back to residential (as
>> imported from TIGER). This is obviously not an ideal state of affairs.
>>
>> So my question is whether this would be an appropriate usage of
>> odbl=clean. In other words, if that mapper had not changed it from
>> residential to secondary, would I have done the same? If so, can I add
>> the tag?
>>
>> (Apologies if this belongs in tagging, since it's about use of a tag.)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk