[OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Toby Murray
toby.murray at gmail.com
Sat Jan 28 21:26:26 GMT 2012
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
>
> I therefore we suggest that we now explicitly adopt the WTFE algorithm as
> criteria for any final rebuild, provided that incremental improvement can
> continue and also that folks can challenge any precepts on legal-talk. That
> vastly reduces the uncertainty that several folks express as we can use the
> figures it produces for the basis of this discussion.
>
> That leaves splits and merges as a potential uncertainty factor. My personal
> opinion here, and I stress personal, is that we make no adjustment for them
> and I'll be happy to discuss this further on legal-talk I will however put
> the USA situation on the LWG agenda.
OK well this helps. After I sent my last message there was a
conversation on IRC about way splitting/merging... It might not be as
big of a deal as I thought. I'm not yet 100% convinced though.
And really it could affect how I remap interstates if such things end
up being taken into account. The easiest way to clean a dirty section
of interstate is to find an unmapped bridge near the beginning of the
way. Splitting the way will contain the dirtyness to the first part
which can then be easily removed and recreated. Now, this *could* be
used to hide license taint improperly. I do not believe I am doing so
in this situation since at the end of the day, this is all from TIGER
anyway and I am just redoing what the decliner did in the first place.
But this could be a problem in places where the base data isn't from a
PD source.
The other major thing that no existing tools take into consideration
is relations. They are mentioned on the "What is clean?" page but they
aren't being factored into any existing algorithms. Not the easiest
thing to show since some of them aren't even rendered on most maps...
Toby
More information about the talk
mailing list