[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

Greg Morgan dr.kludge.gm at gmail.com
Sun Aug 27 19:37:22 UTC 2017


On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Nicolás Alvarez <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I don't understand what people mean with 'verifying' objects. We're
> not trying to find factually-incorrect data. The data is legally
> tainted. It's questionable whether looking at the current names
> imported from GMaps, comparing to another source, seeing they match
> and marking them as "verified" will legally change anything.



> And it's
> impossible to know if people are really verifying anything or just
> blindly marking them as verified.
>
>
Nicolás is there any chance you can refrain from slimming the community
like that?



> I think the only clean way to solve this is to redact and then re-map
> from legal sources.
>

If you are in another country than the US and Canada, then you may not have
a second legal source and you would make this statement.  In my case, I
have had a series of tiger name layers work from over the years..  So what
Fredrick wants to do based on his list is to wipe out my work with his
purposed blind revert.  As an example, here is way
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103141172 .  I cleaned up the geometry
two years ago.  I added access tags and what not.  I make it a habit of
removing all tiger tags when I am finished cleaning up and verifying names
with the tiger layer.  Way 103141172 is on Fredrick's list.  If he performs
is revert, then I am going to have to go back and add the name back that I
have already checked on.  Hence, I do not agree with either of your
statements.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170827/3545226d/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list