The LWG won't be making any "decisions" we will be making recommendations to the board, which may or may not take action on them.
Generally I would prefer if we could simply have two versions of everything, one with metadata for authenticated users/consumers one without. This likely will not be feasible for everything, but at least for the important stuff. Am 14.02.2018 um 17:17 schrieb Roland Olbricht: > Hi, > >> - timestamps however cannot only potentially be used in lieu of >> changeset ids to group contributions, the information itself is >> problematic because it allows to profile contributions over time > > Timestamps are necessary to correctly figure out which nodes have > belonged to a certain version of a way, and similarly for ways and > nodes belonging to relations. > > More generally: > > - What is planned with regard to minute diffs? Stripping extra > information will inevitably break tools like Achavi > > - Tools will need substantial time (I would estimate 3-6 months for > Overpass API) to adapt in a meaningful way. What is the schedule of > the LWG to take decisions? > The deadline is more or less clear for things that we consider really touchy, they need to be fixed by the end of May. Wrt Overpass API, there is no reason why you couldn't consume diffs as up to now, as long as the output is sanitized (regardless of what the OSMF says and does, the GDPR doesn't go away for you, so you need to consider your options in any case). > - How about simply asking the users for consent? We could then > -- make a clear-cut last complete history dump before the date > -- start with a planet dump without history before that date > afterwards that then accumulates history only from users that have > given consent > The problem is that that doesn't solve anything as, recently confirmed by the EU, consent is only considered freely given and valid, if it can be withdrawn, and from a practical pov that essentially forces two distribution streams on different terms (one that can be used without any privacy related restrictions and one with with all the trouble). > Personally, I would prefer a solution as easy as dropping usernames > and uids but retaining changeset ids, timestamps and the geometry/tag > data. > That way we display goodwill, but do not cripple the tools that have > proven useful or crucial to run the project. Unluckily what I would prefer is not the question :-/. Simon > > Please note that in the context of an API without user interface, it > is a substantial challenge in itself to have any form of (OAuth or so) > authentification. > > Cheers, > Roland > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
