Hi again, The inevitable data cleaning comes closer and closer, therefore I want to rise the issue again before it's too late (with the new knowledge I got from Simon's answers).
In short, I used old database objects (which were imports from sources incompatible with CT & ODBL) to enter entirely new data into OSM (IDs and some key-value pairs stayed the same). The new data are in commits marked as CT-compatible. It appears that the automated cleanup process is going to remove that kind of data. My question is: how to preserve the new data? I believe that the fact that I surveyed the objects myself and ignored all existing positions/tagging breaks "time-continuity" of the objects, and therefore their old license. Is it acceptable for me to wait until cleanup is finished, extract that kind of contributions and re-commit them? It's very unlikely that the original author of the imported data is going to relicense it. As much as I love contributing to OSM, I don't think I'm going to have the same willpower again to turn a blank 40x40km area into something useable. I don't want to sound negative, but combined with the fact that imports (which I consider a defining characteristic of open-source projects) are much harder now than a few years earlier, I might abandon OSM if this gets thrown away. I'm writing all this precisely because I don't want this to happen. Cheers, rhn > > The v0 rule essentially states that allocating an object in the DB > doesn't create IP, so if you have an object that has lost all of the > attributes it originally had it is essentially a new object. > > However in your case that really doesn't apply (IMHO), because what I've > seen from your examples is that you actually imported the data yourself > and at least some of the original tags have survived. Note that the data > would actually survive the redaction process at this point in time, but > naturally you shouldn't have agreed to the CTs in the first place. > > The preferred way to proceed would be for you to get permission to > release the data you imported under the ODBL from the original creator > in the UMP project, as you probably know there is an effort under way to > organize exactly that in Poland. > > Simon > > Am 28.03.2012 22:43, schrieb rhn: > > Three different examples; all of them were remapped& verified in respect > > to location and tags (except of name=* in most cases). That doesn't mean > > the tags have changed though, sometimes they were imported just right. > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099536/history > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099539/history > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28099452/history > > > > Could you point me to the v0 rule you're referring to? > > > > Cheers, > > rhn > > > >> If you essentially remapped the objects it may be that some or most of > >> your data would be safe due to the v0 rule (regardless of any other > >> developments wrt UMP). It is difficult to answer this more definitely > >> we would need to see some examples. > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> Am 28.03.2012 22:12, schrieb rhn: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Please excuse me if my question has been asked before, I don't follow > >>> this list. > >>> > >>> Today I found information about the way data is going to be marked as > >>> incompatible - the way I understood it, all ways and nodes are going to > >>> be reverted to the latest compatible version (i.e. the one before first > >>> CC-only changeset). > >>> > >>> This worries me, as it seems the bulk of my changesets will be deleted. > >>> I focused on an area with data coming nearly exclusively from an > >>> incompatible source (UMP). Before a license change was even in plans, I > >>> managed to replace the road network almost completely with GPS traces and > >>> some landuse data with WMS and traces. > >>> The problem is, I never bothered too much with replacing the actual > >>> database objects (takes too much time), thinking removal of source=* > >>> would be enough. Let me mention that I removed source only from nodes > >>> and ways that I had precise data about (and would have deleted if it > >>> wasn't a hassle). > >>> > >>> My questions are: Is it acceptable to copy the snapshot of my current > >>> data that would otherwise get deleted and restore it as CT-compatible? > >>> If yes, should the backup be performed now or is there going to be a way > >>> to access CC data after the license change? > >>> If not, is there any other way to preserve the data? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> rhn > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> legal-talk mailing list > >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> legal-talk mailing list > >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ > > legal-talk mailing list > > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
