[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 28 00:56:53 UTC 2017
>I haven't seen any compelling evidence or discussion about whether or not
the data in question was illegally copied into OSM. All we have to go on is
the first paragraph of Frederik's initial post. I'm not questioning
Frederik's (or any DWG members') passion or dedication to the project, but
we are the contributors and I would hope we can expect some extra modicum
of transparency when a proposal of this magnitude is made.
It has been brought to the OSMF's attention. It has been verified that
there are "Easter Eggs" from Google are in there. I must say that I agree
with Paul Norman's point of view, in this case there is no choice.
Having said that there are costs involved in cleaning it up even if its
only people time.
The decision to me lies between deleting the value in name="xyz street" for
all the highways touched or seeing if we reduce the work by being more
selective and verifying some of the names.
Unfortunately if we want to ask someone to remove data copied from OSM in
the future our case is much stronger if we have deleted all the suspect
data ourselves on this occasion when it has been brought to our attention
and verified that there are "Easter eggs" in our data and I think you have
to take that into account.
On 27 August 2017 at 20:40, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
>> On 8/27/2017 10:29 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
>>> I strongly disagree. As a group of people who have received
>>> extra-judicial powers in the OSM community, they should be expected to
>>> follow community guidelines to a higher degree than the rest of the
>> As the publisher of the OSM database, the OSMF has various legal
>> obligations. When we become aware of data that has been illegally copied
>> into OSM we need to stop distributing that data, generally by deleting it
>> and redacting the old versions so they are no longer accessible. It's worth
>> discussing if we can refine the identification of data illegally copied
>> data, but we need to remove it in the end, regardless of if we want to.
> I haven't seen any compelling evidence or discussion about whether or not
> the data in question was illegally copied into OSM. All we have to go on is
> the first paragraph of Frederik's initial post. I'm not questioning
> Frederik's (or any DWG members') passion or dedication to the project, but
> we are the contributors and I would hope we can expect some extra modicum
> of transparency when a proposal of this magnitude is made.
> I'm glad this discussion is happening now, but I hope we can expect to see
> it happen again if something else comes up in the future.
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk