[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 28 07:57:37 UTC 2017
The guidelines were formulated for data additions. This should guard
against things being entered into the data base that are questionable.
This is a data deletion - a very different thing. In this case it is
required, ethically at least.
I have looks at some 6 in 'my area' and they all should be removed.
That is some 6 out of ~2,600... don't have time for more at the moment.
A poor sample size but 100% for deletion.
Again for 'my area' there is no easy copyright free method of name
verification - they will all have to go.
On 28-Aug-17 10:56 AM, john whelan wrote:
> >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.
> Cheerio John
> On 27 August 2017 at 20:40, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com
> <mailto:ian.dees at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com
> <mailto: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 community.
> 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
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk