On 10 January 2012 13:19, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > ** > On 10/01/2012 13:43, Peter Miller wrote: > > > > On 10 January 2012 12:07, David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote: > >> On 10/01/2012 11:44, Peter Miller wrote: >> >>> Is there no way in this case to formally 'claim' the IPR for this >>> features on the basis that we have moved them and edited all the >>> surrounding features? >>> >> >> Exactly the question I raised on talk on Monday. I don't think you even >> need to have moved anything, merely to have checked against a valid source >> other than the non-accepting contributor (e.g. Bing for location, local >> knowledge or OSSV etc for names) in order to claim the IPR. I really don't >> see what mechanically then reproducing what is already there actually adds >> to the process other than wasted time. >> > > Thank you. This is a matter of judgement by the Licensing Working Group > and they should come back with a clear view on it. > > > Our formal minuted doctrine, Item 7 > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1pPOFHo_o5inG9Ereh3Zn5ItmctZGRFbcmnKwtbyNkdM, > is that it > is for the community to pass judgement on whether the criteria are > acceptable rather than LWG and that criteria are recorded on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F so > that it is publicly transparent and in one centralised resource. We > monitor and will scream if we think the there is any veering away from good > faith and reasonable effort to check either that the IPR of non-continuing > mappers has been completely removed or that it has been completely > duplicated by continuing mappers. > > Anything like this also needs to be practical enough for a quantitative > rule to be easily coded into visualisation tools and into final rebuild > scripts by our technical volunteers. > > +1 to Richard's suggestion odbl=clean . Your userid is recorded with the > tag addition. >
Thanks Mike. I am glad you support the odbl=clean. I have now added a few to the map in my area, and have also used the 'O' feature to replace some nodes at junctions and the like. Personally I find the 'What is Clean' page a bit too rich on suggestions and not clear enough on conclusions based on a quick look. I want to go through my area of the country and get it up to a standard that will be accepted as efficiently as possible and not have to make any personal judgements about what is ok and not and then find that that conflicts with the view of the tool makers or that of the people who do the final data removal pass. After all, we will need a clear agreement before the switchover about what stays and what goes so lets do that now, not at the end of March! Regards, Peter > Note also that some anonymous contributors did actually provide email > addresses, got our bulk emailings and have said yes to the new terms. > > Mike >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
