Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Hi, On 21 December 2011 15:06, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: On 13 December 2011 23:03, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. I'm responding to this old thread because now I think whoever made the criteria could have answered the question asked here. But really there's probably no answer because the date was pulled out of thin air. Well, I'm not on any committee, but I find it hard how anyone can't think there is a critical mass. Over 95% of the data will be retained, and this figure is increasing weekly both due to new acceptances and of course ongoing mapping by those who have already accepted. I'm not claiming that's a bad date, just trying to find an explanation to how the decision process works (and why David Earl's question would never be answered). I'm seeing the license process has run over most of the project's normal working rules by now. For example (but really these are some of many details): * the currently proposed What is clear criteria based on a individual object's history. A couple of months ago [1] Frederik wrote: There are a number of other reasons why IDs could break. [...] Relying on numeric IDs is never going to work, and there is no way how this could be made to work in the future. And now the whole process which is supposed to be legally sound is supposed to work based on those IDs. It's trivial to detect merges, splits, and tag copy/pasting specially since the changesets have been introduced and most usual edits happen inside a single changeset. Considering that first year IT students have to implement pattern recognition that can read text there's really no technical excuse to not detect that nodes that belonged to one way now belong to another. * at the same time proposed is a meta tag odbl= that is further from the on the round rule than perhaps any other tagging devised until now. The don't tag for the render rule (where renderer refers to any particular tool using the OSM *map* database) has just gone down the drain. * the body who's supposed to support rather than govern the project is on its way to remove map data. Tangentially, note that the CT 1.2.4 document, which over a hundred thousand people has been made accept, has been written in such a way that it doesn't disallow ODbL-incompatible data being contributed, and people have accepted the terms on that basis [2]. In effect no one can know what is or isn't incompatible. But Frederik's and Simon Poole's visualisations in some ways imply that whatever passes the What is clean test is ODbL compatible and possibly any free-and-open-license-compatible. As a result several of my friend mappers are under attack from authors of CC-By-SA data which now shows as green on those visualisations. It's very hard to explain to them that those maps are some person's viewpoint based on information that is orthogonal to the new license compatibility, and that their work has not been stolen. Which only makes it harder to convince those authors to agree to the new license (and shouldn't this, and the remapping going on, really be somebody else's task?). Does that mean that LWG needs to ask all of those who agreed to CT 1.2.4 to accept a new version of the contract, if it wants to switch to ODbL? (incidentally tonight I found that the OpenStreetMap website has not been displaying the full Contributor Terms document to the people agreeing for the last perhaps three months, due to a bug -- basically since the introduction of version 1.2.4 [3]) How does that relate to the 4 months time left to find out what is or isn't new license compatible? Cheers 1. http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Blatant-case-of-tagging-for-the-renderer-tt6633546.html 2. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary 3. https://github.com/balrog-kun/openstreetmap-website/commit/fa7e099d840f1214a4a3339873bc39ed52f0a485 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Hi, On 13 December 2011 23:03, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: [...] What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. I'm responding to this old thread because now I think whoever made the criteria could have answered the question asked here. But really there's probably no answer because the date was pulled out of thin air. There are old comments in the mailing list archives from LWG members that when and how to measure if enough data is ready, would be decided later by the contributors at that time. I think the reason this hasn't happened is that the LWG and the board work like committees (for some time, perhaps not since the beginning). A committee can easily allow itself to change its mind or not answer questions and it has to be noted that this is none of the committee members' fault. It's just how committees work. Their time is too valuable to be spent answering every single question asked or considering lesser problems (it really is, since they meet once every some time), which frees a committee from having to justify many decisions. It also has the leisure of having a high authority (it's assumed to be an expert group even in a do-cracy) but at the same time not having to stick to everything it says, which is unique. Now a license change is generally a terribly complex thing to execute and I guess there's no other way to do it than through a committee with an assigned mandate, who won't stop once it gains momentum; so we have to live with that. Cheers -- some fortunes I just found: The weaker the data available upon which to base one's conclusion, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity. Cruickshank's Law of Committees: If a committee is allowed to discuss a bad idea long enough, it will inevitably decide to implement the idea simply because so much work has already been done on it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Andrzej wrote: On 13 December 2011 23:03, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: [...] What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. I'm responding to this old thread because now I think whoever made the criteria could have answered the question asked here. But really there's probably no answer because the date was pulled out of thin air. Well, I'm not on any committee, but I find it hard how anyone can't think there is a critical mass. Over 95% of the data will be retained, and this figure is increasing weekly both due to new acceptances and of course ongoing mapping by those who have already accepted. While there are still a large number of people who have at one time or another signed up to the project who haven't yet accepted, of those who have accepted or denied, over 99% have accepted. Again the exact percentage is still increasing as efforts are made to contact people who may have made a small number of edits in the past and OSM don't have their current email address so they are unaware of what is happening, but are more likely to accept than not if they can be reached. Anyway, I don't know whether there are any precise numeric criteria, but if there were I would have expected 95% of data retained and 99% of responders accepting to be fairly high criteria and ones that we have surpassed already, so as far as I'm concerned 1st April could just have easily been 1st January. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Sorry but Frederik and my numbers (odbl.poole.ch) are compatible (odbl.de naturally not, RTFM). Just because some areas look like a big red blob, doesn't mean that are lot of useful (ie non-imported) data is being lost, look at Spain for example. Simon Am 14.12.2011 02:12, schrieb Jo: The numbers come from Frederik's map and some areas really look dramatic. odbl.poole.ch http://odbl.poole.ch and http://odbl.de come to very optimistic conclusions. Possibly because they only consider the last contributor to an object or another metric which doesn't hold water. Jo 2011/12/14 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch mailto:si...@poole.ch David I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%. See odbl.poole.ch http://odbl.poole.ch Simon David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com schrieb: On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com mailto:winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
There are some people [1] who are starting to get upset about the fact that contributions that they are making will get deleted on April 1st. Innocent contributors who know little or nothing about the license change are happily editing roads that will soon get deleted. There's little to tell them that this will happen. Shouldn't the API be preventing edits to non-CT content already? There is little point in allowing edits on top of non-CT content as they'll get deleted in April. At the same time this will seriously piss-off anyone who loses all their hard work. Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? 80n [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-December/060996.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
80n wrote: Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content can take two forms. There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by those who have declined the Contributor Terms. I agree that it would be good to encourage people not to build edits upon this. In the New Year I intend to switch the Potlatch 2 licence status display from off-by-default to on-by-default, with an explanatory notice. People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new content, often using the new sources which were not available when the content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good. There is a second content: content that may be relicensed, but we don't know yet. This is the content input by those who have neither declined nor accepted the Contributor Terms. In most cases, this is because the user simply isn't aware of the issue. Individual contact by local mappers often proves very fruitful in resolving this. It would be premature IMHO to delete or block edits to this content; the user may agree next week. Indeed, I'm delighted that just in the last few weeks, I've seen several UK cities and large towns saved! But there are a small number of mappers who are very well aware of the issue and have not signalled their intention, and you, of course, are the most prominent. I would encourage you to accept the terms. It is not crucial to the success of FOSM that OSM fails, and vice versa; you yourself have said many times that it is the _community_ which determines the future success of a project. Indeed, I hope both thrive, which is why I took the trouble to alert the FOSM list that I was actively remapping so that you have the choice of which content to retain (and you very kindly said that my mapping was of a good quality which you'd welcome in FOSM, for which thank you :) ). No-one who has read your postings will be in any doubt that allowing your content to continue in OSM is an endorsement of the CTs or ODbL. Though TimSC and I disagreed on pretty much everything, I think his final decision, to place his edits in the public domain, was an honourable one. But if you can't see your way to accepting the terms, it would be honourable of you to click 'Decline', so that those people mapping in the areas where you have worked know where they stand. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091028.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 12/13/2011 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new content, often using the new sources which were not available when the content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good. Disagree. It's only good if done with care to not remove any information. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
This will sound like I'm ranting, and if it does, that's not my intent. I'm really wanting to help creating additional problems. So . . . It won't help improving and reconciling the non-CT data. But it will keep anyone else from adding (and then losing) data to features slated for deletion. Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning curve to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT, and may not even know about the license change, such a person has every right to expect that his/her contributions will stick and not disappear next spring because s/he did not know to look first for whether it is OK to edit something already in the OSM database. The big we (the OSM community) do encourage people to edit/correct/update whatever is in the data, if it is incorrect or incomplete, as one of the strengths of our crowd-sourced approach to mapping. It is difficult enough getting people involved without asking them to pay attention to a problem that they did not create but that could come back to bite them. Again, I'm thinking of new users here. Ideally, if someone selects and tries to edit a feature that is subject to deletion or reversion, I would have something pop up with a brief, clear note that this contains bad data and should not be edited, but asking the person to create a new node/way based on their own observation, and to feel free to copy any tags that they can confirm from their own observation (for example, it is indeed a Shell station and does indeed sell diesel). This will involve some programming and some attention to how to explain it. But without something like this, I think that this spring we're going to lose contributors who don't know anything about this and really shouldn't have to, when their contributions disappear. I don't want that to happen. Ed Hillsman Richard Weait richard at weait.com mailto:talk%40openstreetmap.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BOSM-talk%5D%20Editing%20of%20content%20that%20will%20be%20deleted%20on%20April%201stIn-Reply-To=%3CCAGwUD5tSCMf%3DqjM5f7RXzQh_poAJAn8VeKwmrTss1Cni_z96UQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E wrote Tue Dec 13 18:47:28 GMT 2011 On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n80n at gmail.comhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 12/13/2011 2:27 PM, Hillsman, Edward wrote: Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning curve to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT, and may not even know about the license change, such a person has every right to expect that his/her contributions will “stick” and not disappear next spring because s/he did not know to look first for whether it is OK to edit something already in the OSM database. This is the primary reason I haven't tried to create any local OSM meetups. But, (Smacking self up-side the head), I spent a block of time over the last 2 weeks fixing up an area that had been edited by some newbies - in too much of a hurry to check the license view. And now that I check the license view, I see that the whole area will be nuked back to the state of 2008 or so. So 80n's suggestion about disallowing edits to non-CT data isn't so bad. It makes sense only to delete it at this time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? I don't think I made any point about reconciling and improving non-CT content. Why do you bring that up? It's a subject that needs to be addressed but but its related to my point how? You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. It will be very demotivational if that unavoidably deletes fresh contributions made over the next three months. What plans are there to put some controls in place? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content can take two forms. There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by those who have declined the Contributor Terms. The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water. One form of content *will* get deleted, the other form *may* get deleted. Trying to convert *may* into *will* doesn't help the hapless contributor who just wants to edit something today. Does anyone have a plan? I'd suggest something like: Step 1. Identify what is safe content that can definitely be built up. Step 2. Prevent innocent contributors from touching content that is not safe. Is it any more complex than that? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
80n wrote: The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water. Can you answer the question, please? You have edited a bunch of stuff in the North Cotswolds, which is an area very near where I live and which I care about. I remember one changeset called Cotswolds, another called Rock and rollright. I will remap it if I need to but would rather not do so if unnecessary. Could you answer, for what will be the third time of asking today, do you intend to: a) accept the CTs b) reject the CTs c) you are not willing to say If c), which is the situation at present, why not? What reason can you give me for, say, not deleting your contributions in Weybridge immediately and reuploading from OS OpenData? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091664.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . Frederick's map (THANK YOU!) is really the first indication I've seen of what the consequences are likely to be, yet what seems to be being said is that it will go ahead in April come what may. What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing. I've been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very thread by an OSMF board member). Many people have been railroaded into compliance by threats that their contributions will be deleted, despite this being patently untrue (there is at least one fork that will not delete anyone's data). You should probably never believe in promises from politicians, especially if they don't have a viable plan for how they will achive it, 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
80n wrote: David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing. I've been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very thread by an OSMF board member). No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not say. Obviously, I would prefer it if you agreed, but it's your choice. I am at a loss to work out why, for someone so au fait with the issues, you have not done so yet. The OSMF board member thing is a red herring: I am posting here in a personal capacity, as I always will unless the message is signed otherwise. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091781.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a doubt the license change will proceed. So remapping makes a lot of sense from now on and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is doing it any more. I, for one, am glad a date for the transition to phase 5 has been announced. We still have several months to limit the damages and that which won't get rescued, will be remapped in due course afterwards. Richard, I'd simply go ahead and get that area from a different source if you have an acceptable one. Some people don't agree because they can't, but others don't agree simply because they like to be obstructive. I'd have no mercy on their edits. Not giving an answer to your question is also an answer. I do agree that it's unfortunate that new contributor's contributions may get deleted if they are not rescued by somebody before April 1st, so it's probably important that people are made aware of the situation at hand and what to do about it. Polyglot 2011/12/13 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . Frederick's map (THANK YOU!) is really the first indication I've seen of what the consequences are likely to be, yet what seems to be being said is that it will go ahead in April come what may. What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass. David __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Hi, On 12/13/2011 11:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not say. Personally I feel that it is unfortunate that we're allowing people to remain undecided for so long. Had 80n properly disagreed when he was first asked, his edits could long have been re-created by now. By holding out, he's in the position of being able to discount anyone touching his edits as a vandal, or someone making unnecessary work for themselves, as acting prematurely, or whatever, all the while hinting at maybe I'll still agree, I haven't said it you know. I, for one, have politely notified the major undecided contributors in my area that I will count their undecided as a no and start remapping their stuff in January, and frankly I would appreciate OSMF/LWG to set a date well before the planned license changeover and clearly say: If you haven't decided until then, that's a no. Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the very last day and then, smilingly, tell us you know what, I've decided to disagree after all. That's four winter months wasted when they could have been perfectly well used for averting damage. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
How about before we start attempting to rescue anything from the OSMF, we make sure we know what we're doing? What is the proper way to edit an object that has been modified by a decliner? What is the proper way to do this to a relation, especially one with many members and many revisions? How can we be sure that the OSMF will not apply a different algorithm that takes things into account that Frederik has not? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On 12/13/2011 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the very last day and then, smilingly, tell us you know what, I've decided to disagree after all. That's four winter months wasted when they could have been perfectly well used for averting damage. Please don't shift the blame. The OSMF is pushing the change and will be to blame for the damage that occurs on April Fools. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
Everyone, I'm seeing some really ugly and useless discussion on this thread. Yes, there are some real technical issues to discuss with the final stages of the license change, but those substantial issues are now lost in this thread. Review the etiquette rules (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette#Process_for_Moderation), and before you make your next post, consider how it stands up. Mike, Andy and I are going to discuss how to handle some specific posts from this thread, and take action as required. Mikel talk moderators ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
David I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%. See odbl.poole.ch Simon David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com schrieb: On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
2011/12/14 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Then the whole process would drag on forever. It's good a definite date has been set and we can all, as a community, start working towards the goal of 'rescuing' as much as possible. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. I tried and out of a few hundred people I contacted in Belgium and the Netherlands, 20 responded and maybe 15 said yes (I also contacted people who had already explicitly declined). Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
The numbers come from Frederik's map and some areas really look dramatic. odbl.poole.ch and http://odbl.de come to very optimistic conclusions. Possibly because they only consider the last contributor to an object or another metric which doesn't hold water. Jo 2011/12/14 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch David I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%. See odbl.poole.ch Simon David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com schrieb: On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion. That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed. Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the earlier work away too. I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong. Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know. David -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
