> On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, is just "knowing the footpaths" evidence enough to tag with
> > "odbl=clean"? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with "iffy"
> > sources?
>
> "Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions
> from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...]
> *and where those contributions have since been superceded or "washed
> out" by subsequent changes*"
>
> Emphasis mine.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean
OK may be I wasn't quite using it quite with the proper intention, although I
think most of the ways I added it to have been revised in some manner.
However it's quite difficult to determine how much a ways' geometry has changed.
>
> Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the
> tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it,
> and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I
> don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if
> it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging
> anything with it.
I think that's why I hadn't really bothered until now.
To my mind, I was generally just going to wait until things were deleted and
then create my own version, but I was inspired by Nick Austin's efforts, to
attempt to do something first.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
