Hi, On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +0000 Dermot McNally <derm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly "tainted" node which > has both been moved and stripped of any "tainted" tags would also be > considered clean. Is this so
Yes. > 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as > a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds > cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper "cleans" the object by removing this > tag. Time passes... > > Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds > back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now? Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing mapper adding "cuisine=pizza", the agreeing mapper "cleaning" the object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't see an easy way out. > > * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as > > harmless if these nodes are not present any more in the current > > version of the way > > Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the > non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right? Yes. These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their changeset comment saying "all edits in this changeset are remapping from original sources", or we could even say: Whenever the changeset has a source tag we consider this to be original sources... Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk