On 12 August 2010 22:22, Grant Slater wrote:
> Sorry, my abuse reply was to the hypothetical question.
>
> But the un-winding of edits still stands.
What about abusive edits that tweak the location of nodes by 0.1mm by
someone pro-CT/ODBL just so they can claim the node was their
creation?
_
On 12 August 2010 13:05, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Ok - just to clarify.
>
> If I've edited a road then the bot does it's thing and then I make further
> improvements,
> the bots effect can be automatically removed without losing either of my
> edits.
>
I don't know the details yet, but the document
On 12 August 2010 13:07, John Smith wrote:
> On 12 August 2010 22:03, Liz wrote:
>> I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category,
>> and it would not be classified as "abusive" because it did add additional
>> information to the tags.
>
> Not only that, but others o
On 12 August 2010 22:03, Liz wrote:
> I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category,
> and it would not be classified as "abusive" because it did add additional
> information to the tags.
Not only that, but others on the talk-au list at the time thought it
was a good
"Thankfully worrying too much.
We have the full history of all changes, his edits would not be
carried across (unwound) but the existing data if approved for ODbL
would be carried across.
There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
sorts of abusive edits.
There is a full
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
> It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
> streets in (say) Canberra
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
> There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
> sorts of abusive edits.
I can immed
On 12 August 2010 21:28, Nick Hocking wrote:
> Have I got this right or am I worrying too much?
It's unclear what will happen at this point, since no one has the
chance to actually disagree any more, although there was a thread
about what to do about people that aren't contactable.
The outcome w
On 12 August 2010 12:28, Nick Hocking wrote:
>
> It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
> streets in (say) Canberra and then failed to
> agree to a re-licence, then all those streets in Canberra would be thrown
> away in their entirety (or hidden from publicatio
I haven't read all the posts regarding this matter so maybe I have missed
some clarifications but
It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
streets in (say) Canberra and then failed to
agree to a re-licence, then all those streets in Canberra would be thrown
aw
9 matches
Mail list logo
