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

Warin 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
>     future.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     talk mailing list
>     talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170828/47728678/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list