Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to the new license if the .odbl database is to be clean. Cheerio John On 14 December 2011 11:31, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Doesn't make any difference to the CTs, but I've noticed but I'm not the first named author of a few ways which I'm 99.99% sure that I created: the ways with the ID 2232-2235. I still remember the surveying/editing session in which I created the ways. These were very early ways (spring 2006) so I'm guessing that recording the history of who created/edited ways only came in after that? However, ways with even lower IDs (e.g. 223) do have myself as original author. Curious as to why my involvement with the 223x ways appears to have been lost... All history prior to 7th October 2007 was lost when the API was upgraded from 0.4 to 0.5. An email from that date confirms this[1]: 4. History cleared. History will continue to be written as before, but we have removed past history data from the database today. When accessing existing objects you can still see the person who last modified them (even if that modification was before the switch), but no details about any previous modifications. Everything that was not version 1 on 7th October 2007 has an incomplete history and ought to be considered to be unsafe. 80n [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-October/018638.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to the new license if the .odbl database is to be clean. That's quite a conclusion that you are jumping to there, John. Of responding accounts registered by then, more than 98.5% have accepted CT/ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to the new license if the .odbl database is to be clean. That's quite a conclusion that you are jumping to there, John. Of responding accounts registered by then, more than 98.5% have accepted CT/ODbL. Richard if you are saying that that conclusion is incorrect then could you tell us what will happen ? Regards David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
On 14-12-2011 19:32, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelanjwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to the new license if the .odbl database is to be clean. That's quite a conclusion that you are jumping to there, John. Of responding accounts registered by then, more than 98.5% have accepted CT/ODbL. Well, since all history of that data before API v0.5 is lost, and the oldest history known is of the last person editing it, you don't know who created it. Therefore you don't know if this data is created by someone who agrees to the CT and/or the license move. Isn't the conclusion then that that data should be deleted? Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
Maarten Deen wrote: Well, since all history of that data before API v0.5 is lost Hey hey hey. Slow down. Data before API 0.5 is _not_ lost. It is archived. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Who-mapped-it-first-with-ref-to-forth-coming-deletions-implication-tp7094472p7094769.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
On 14 December 2011 20:14, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 14-12-2011 19:32, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, john whelanjwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: So essentially all data that existed on this date will need to be deleted since we can't be sure who entered or edited it or if they have agreed to the new license if the .odbl database is to be clean. That's quite a conclusion that you are jumping to there, John. Of responding accounts registered by then, more than 98.5% have accepted CT/ODbL. Well, since all history of that data before API v0.5 is lost, and the oldest history known is of the last person editing it, you don't know who created it. Therefore you don't know if this data is created by someone who agrees to the CT and/or the license move. Isn't the conclusion then that that data should be deleted? The conclusion should probably be that it needs to be treated as if v1 was not ODbL compatible. With a clever enough algorithm this may not always be the same thing. However http://planet.osm.org/history/ contains daily diffs starting from 2004-07-01. But, it looks like only the last edit of each day is kept which means that there may be edits by other users in between these edits (?). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
On 14-12-2011 20:32, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: Well, since all history of that data before API v0.5 is lost Hey hey hey. Slow down. Data before API 0.5 is _not_ lost. It is archived. That is something different than what 80n said earlier, quoting a message from Frederik Ramm: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-December/061087.html An email from that date confirms this[1]: 4. History cleared. History will continue to be written as before, but we have removed past history data from the database today. When accessing existing objects you can still see the person who last modified them (even if that modification was before the switch), but no details about any previous modifications. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-October/018638.html So, which is it? Cleared and no details about any previous modifications or archived and earlier details available? You have to excuse the confusion, because these are conflicting messages. Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions - implication
Maarten Deen wrote: That is something different than what 80n said earlier 80n, not for the first time, is wrong. So, which is it? Cleared and no details about any previous modifications or archived and earlier details available? You have to excuse the confusion, because these are conflicting messages. We have the full history of every OSM object ever created. Post-0.5, the history is stored in the main database, as you know. The API 0.5 changeover involved a very significant change to the data model (we dropped the segment datatype, and changed the definition of a way to be an ordered list of nodes rather than an unordered collection of segments). It therefore wasn't possible to directly keep an equivalent object history _in_ _the_ _database_. Hence Frederik's message: we have removed past history data from the database today. However, it was, of course, archived, and is sitting on a server somewhere. I don't believe this data has yet been analysed or republished; and I'm sure that analysing it will not be a simple task; but no doubt finer minds than mine are thinking about it. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Who-mapped-it-first-with-ref-to-forth-coming-deletions-implication-tp7094472p7094981.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
