Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Maning, On 12/16/11 08:26, maning sambale wrote: As what the subjects says, instead of removing and recreating tainted data, I think it's best (in some cases) to revert to the last known clean version. This makes sense. Sometimes you will not even have to revert to a last known clean version, for example if you have a node where * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant, name=foo * Disagreeing user B adds cuisine=italian * Agreeing user C adds wheelchair=yes then it is sufficient that you remove cuisine=italian, you don't need to remove wheelchair=yes also. However, if you do that, then the object still looks tainted to anyone taking a quick look at the history (user B does not vanish from the history). Only closer examination reveals that user B's contribution is now void. And it gets more complicated: * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant * Disagreeing user B adds name=Fred's Pizza Place * Agreeing user C changes name=Tom's Pasta Emporium this node is clearly clean already, because it does not contain traces of B's work any longer. However a quite similar example... * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant * Disagreeing user B adds name=Freds Pizza Place * Agreeing user C changes name=Fred's Pizza Place ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to fix names? I think it would be good to have a tag that mappers can use to say this object is clean, I have personally checked the history and/or reverted it to a relicensable state, any contributions by non-agreeing users are not present in the current version any longer. Then, if you revert an object to an earlier version, you'd just add that tag to express then even though the object history does contain contributions by non-agreers, it can remain. I am experimenting with using the tag odbl=clean for this, and will build support for that into the OSMI relicensing view. But the matter still needs to be discussed properly, and with OSM Inspector not being an official site in any way, it is not for me to say whether such a tag would be honoured when the day comes. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: I am experimenting with using the tag odbl=clean for this, I guess ct=clean would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. (Recall that the CTs require the content must be distributable under the current licence, which means CC-BY-SA - this was clarified a few months ago by the LWG I believe. Of course in the majority of cases CT-able data is also ODbL-able.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Hi, On 12/16/11 12:12, Ed Avis wrote: I guess ct=clean would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to remap it now, right? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Anonymous nodes edited supporting way
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: In order to preserve anonymity while still allowing them to be taken through into the new database, LWG has provided a list of the changesets edited by anonymous-but-accepting-CTs mappers. This is available on planet.osm.org and will be refreshed periodically. I believe both Frederik and Simon are using it for their visualisation/tally services. OK, thanks to clarify thing. But the nodes i'm talking about are indicate in geofabrick tool subhect to licence trouble and i a explorer history for some nodes all users envolve have accepted CTs, except for the first one that has no user in history (i assume it was anonymous). One node history : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/21462322/history The area in geofabrick (nodes on the motorway) http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.55431lat=45.75814zoo m=11overlays=overview,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point _modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wt fe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created Perhaps there is no problems, but i'm worry. -- Pierre-Alain Dorange OSM experiences : http://www.leretourdelautruche.com/map/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant * Disagreeing user B adds name=Fred's Pizza Place * Agreeing user C changes name=Tom's Pasta Emporium this node is clearly clean already, because it does not contain traces of B's work any longer. However a quite similar example... * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant * Disagreeing user B adds name=Freds Pizza Place * Agreeing user C changes name=Fred's Pizza Place ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to fix names? Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes clean? Presumably there are some principles based on the derived works language in Creative Commons (IIRC...) But do we really know what a derived work for a single fact is? Does the test does not contain traces of non-CT-accepting users' work hold up? How is trace defined? etc etc Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Hi, On 12/16/11 14:08, Steve Bennett wrote: ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to fix names? Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes clean? No. Presumably there are some principles based on the derived works language in Creative Commons (IIRC...) But do we really know what a derived work for a single fact is? No. Does the test does not contain traces of non-CT-accepting users' work hold up? How is trace defined? etc etc What do you suggest we do? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: I guess ct=clean would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to remap it now, right? Maybe so, but it's not shown by the usual CT status maps. odbl=clean (or perhaps dbcl=clean?) would be a further tag to add in addition to ct=clean. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known clean version?
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I think it would be good to have a tag that mappers can use to say this object is clean, I have personally checked the history and/or reverted it to a relicensable state, any contributions by non-agreeing users are not present in the current version any longer. +1 replacing tainted data is a pain with current tools. there must be a some support to define an object (not just a changeset) as clean. This is the only chance to keep object history. This should apply to all nodes if this tag is set on a way. At least for nodes without additional tags this should be a reasonable assumption. No one will really draw or verify way nodes independent from creating/verifying a way. tainted nodes with additional tags should retain only the position. This is really important to keep connectivity of the road network intact. if the node tags are tainted we can not keep them. For relations this seems be to tricky and I would not go that far to push a odbl clean flag to it's members Then, if you revert an object to an earlier version, you'd just add that tag to express then even though the object history does contain contributions by non-agreers, it can remain. I am experimenting with using the tag odbl=clean for this, and will build support for that into the OSMI relicensing view. But the matter still needs to be discussed properly, and with OSM Inspector not being an official site in any way, it is not for me to say whether such a tag would be honoured when the day comes. I assume the LWG will follow your implementation as Simon's later post in this thread indicated. The final switch is on DB level so we should do some dry run and compare with yours well before April 1st Bye Frederik ___ 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
