[OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!

[Maarten Deen]

On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen 
wrote:
> Apparently this ownership is more complex then
> at first sight.
>
> A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
> Maarten only took a look at the tags.
>
> cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
> created  the nodes (Version 1) that defines this
> particular way with GPS acquired data,
> later assisted by satellite data, even before
> Bing became available.
>
> way data:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>
> Nodes data (just one)
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history

Interesting. If you say you created them from GPS data, why do they 
have source=AND and an AND_nodes tag? That would be indicative of the 
AND import. But you did not import the AND data in that region by hand?

The fact that the nodes were created on 2007-09-30 and the way was 
created on 2007-09-20 does indicate some editing.

Regards,
Maarten

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:mdeen at xs4all.nl]
> Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
> Aan: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
>
> On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
>>>> "It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply
>>>> modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
>>>> highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
>>>> have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason 
>>>> not
>
>>>> to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.
>>>
>>> It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on 
>>> 2012-01-09:
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history>
>>>
>>> The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history>
>>>
>>> So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny.
>>> Offending
>>> changeset seems to be
>>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339>
>>
>> I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
>>
>> AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change
>> unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole
>> area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.
>
> The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
> march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
> from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under 
> ODbL.
> That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl):
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html
>
> This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions 
> (deleting
> and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
> can be called strange at any point in time.
> You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
> recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that 
> view
> very much.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk