On 24 December 2011 23:03, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Dermot McNally <derm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. Yes, I see the problem - I pose the question because it's interesting given that the desired end-game is a node that is both clean _and_ has cuisine=pizza. But you go on to cover this case... > 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... This was the issue I had in mind, and yes, odbl=clean will fix it. For anybody who hasn't read the LWG minutes, LWG is in favour of respecting odbl=clean come the switchover phase. We've asked for community feedback on this (and on the principle that moving-nodes-cleans-their-position, which we also favour) since we want the decision to be an accountable one having regard to all valid legal and ideological points that should be considered. Now for a horrid twist to the thought experiment - odbl=clean is, as you have described its use above, a nice solution to the problem of wanting to cleanly reapply cuisine=pizza without wiping history. But what if things happen like this?: 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag and chooses, on balance, to lose the tag for now. 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set. This is very similar to the case where the cuisine tag is reapplied without us having odbl=clean set. Certainly, we can point out that we expect good faith and due diligence from mappers. But if we are prepared to consider the object clean in this case, why not also in the case where the cuisine tag has just had a temporary "holiday" from the object even if odbl=clean has not been set? Dermot -- -------------------------------------- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
