Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
- Original Message - From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways Yeah, a healthy chunk of the interstates in Kansas are the same way. I didn't go quite as deep as Nathan but this way is a relevant example: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=33576021 User moonwashed created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way. He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it. But do you know what the source was for moving each node? As has been said earlier, if each node was simply moved by a tiny amount away from the position created by moonwashed, and the new position of the node was not determined by reference to some other source (Bing or GPS maybe), then the new nodes are derived form moonwashes edits So in my mind there is no information left in that way that is attributable to the declining user. Not necessarily true. You can only state that when you know for sure what the basis was for moving each node David I would have absolutely no misgivings doing a straight copy/paste to replace that way with an identical duplicate. But I would rather not do so out of respect to the other CT-accepting users who have contributed to that object. Saying that it is up to the community to decide individual objects is nice but I don't think there is enough time for me to evaluate every tainted object in Kansas before April 1 and there sure as hell isn't enough of a community here to help me with such a thankless task. There are a few mappers in the area but if I asked them to deal with this kind of stuff, I'm pretty sure they would run away screaming. I doubt I can expect much outside help either since pretty much everyone is affected and will be working in their own area first. And as long as there is no official word from the foundation about exactly how this change will be technically executed, we can't really proceed in a meaningful way anyway except from trying to contact non-responsive users, which I am doing. So as much as I really don't really care about the license and am happy to relicense under ODbL and even think it might be a good move, I do have some serious doubts about the ambiguity of the process this late in the process... Toby On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/14/2011 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/15/2011 04:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: So why have people been recommending for months that we remap tainted objects when we still don't know what needs to be remapped? If you prefer to wait until the exact rules are laid out for you, that's your choice. Yes, I prefer only doing a make-work task once. Personally I'd rather make a few educated guesses and get to work now. By my educated reasoning, anything from one node to the entire road is tainted, so it's a little hard to make a guess. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
On 15/12/2011 12:40, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM User moonwashed created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way. He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it. But do you know what the source was for moving each node? As has been said earlier, if each node was simply moved by a tiny amount away from the position created by moonwashed, and the new position of the node was not determined by reference to some other source (Bing or GPS maybe), then the new nodes are derived form moonwashes edits But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't it be considered a break from being a derivative ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
- Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways On 15/12/2011 12:40, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:47 AM User moonwashed created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way. He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it. But do you know what the source was for moving each node? As has been said earlier, if each node was simply moved by a tiny amount away from the position created by moonwashed, and the new position of the node was not determined by reference to some other source (Bing or GPS maybe), then the new nodes are derived form moonwashes edits But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't it be considered a break from being a derivative ? Yes it should be considred a break, because in that case you know what the source for moving the nodes was. What I was pointing out is that you have to know the source used when moving the nodes, before you can determine if the new position is derived from the old one David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't it be considered a break from being a derivative ? Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what the source for moving the nodes was. Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools currently take that into account ? Should they only take the object's source tag into account or also mention of a source in the changeset commit comment ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't it be considered a break from being a derivative ? Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what the source for moving the nodes was. Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools currently take that into account ? Should they only take the object's source tag into account or also mention of a source in the changeset commit comment ? I think there may be a need to better understand how copyright works in this respect in the real world. The location of individual nodes probably has no copyright component, however the shape of a way probably does [1]. If several people have adjusted the shape of a way then they most likely all have joint ownership of the copyright of the whole of that way [2]. Joint ownership is an important principle to understand. If someone edits a way then they are making a derivative of that way and inheriting *all* of the joint copyright ownerships. Even if their changes are to remove the effect of a change by one of the previous contributors it does not, as far as I know, delete that contributors copyright. If this is true, then the only way to disinfect a tainted way is to revert back to the version prior to the infection and applying subsequent changes to that version. Simply negating changes does not delete copyright ownership because the ownership extends to the whole work. Does anyone know of any precedents that show how copyright, once gained, can be deleted from a work? 80n [1] Section 1 (b) (i) of http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf [2] Section 2a of http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
Please continue any detailed discussion of this topic to legal-talk ... that's what it's for. -Mikel Moderators == Mikel Maron == +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com To: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't it be considered a break from being a derivative ? Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what the source for moving the nodes was. Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools currently take that into account ? Should they only take the object's source tag into account or also mention of a source in the changeset commit comment ? I think there may be a need to better understand how copyright works in this respect in the real world. The location of individual nodes probably has no copyright component, however the shape of a way probably does [1]. If several people have adjusted the shape of a way then they most likely all have joint ownership of the copyright of the whole of that way [2]. Joint ownership is an important principle to understand. If someone edits a way then they are making a derivative of that way and inheriting *all* of the joint copyright ownerships. Even if their changes are to remove the effect of a change by one of the previous contributors it does not, as far as I know, delete that contributors copyright. If this is true, then the only way to disinfect a tainted way is to revert back to the version prior to the infection and applying subsequent changes to that version. Simply negating changes does not delete copyright ownership because the ownership extends to the whole work. Does anyone know of any precedents that show how copyright, once gained, can be deleted from a work? 80n [1] Section 1 (b) (i) of http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf [2] Section 2a of http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
Hi, On 12/15/2011 02:11 PM, 80n wrote: Joint ownership is an important principle to understand. If someone edits a way then they are making a derivative of that way and inheriting *all* of the joint copyright ownerships. Provided that a way is a work - maybe it isn't; maybe the whole of OSM is the work? Even if their changes are to remove the effect of a change by one of the previous contributors it does not, as far as I know, delete that contributors copyright. In some national versions of joint authorship, while the joint authors all have a share in the copyright, they do not have the power to veto the use (and sublicensing) of the work by the other authors. This is an important principle to understand. If this is true, then the only way to disinfect a tainted way is to revert back to the version prior to the infection and applying subsequent changes to that version. Simply negating changes does not delete copyright ownership because the ownership extends to the whole work. It sounds like an utterly stupid thing to do but if we now re-set objects to an earlier state by negating changes and later somebody finds out that we would have had to follow your above procedure instead, then that can still be done - automatically. So I'd not waste much thought on this right now; we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
On 12/15/2011 8:21 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: Please continue any detailed discussion of this topic to legal-talk ... that's what it's for. The question is not what's legally true, but what conditions the OSMF will require an object to satisfy to not be reverted. So it actually belongs on osmf-tainting-policy-talk, but there is no such list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
Hi, On 12/15/2011 02:58 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: So what here will be reverted by the OSMF? Obviously node 250413743 needs to be replaced by another node in the same general location. But other than that, is everything tainted because it was split from a tainted way? Or is nothing else tainted because no data from the orange or red users remains? If the latter, do I need to do anything special to ensure that the OSMF does not delete it? If the former, exactly what needs to be remapped to prevent deletion? There are several aspects to this. One is the real legal situation (assuming that a legal truth exists - most lawyers will probably laugh at the assumption). The second is what OSMF believes the legal situation is, and what amount of risk they are willing to take. (We can never be absolutely totally clean because people might make absurd-sounding claims like that road is really a derived work of the pub I placed there... or so.) The third is what I believe OSMF to be likely to do, and what I therefore display on the OSM Inspector layer. Of course the Inspector layer is most useful if it resembles as closely as possible the future OSMF decision. It has been explained already but I'll repeat it - OSMF/LWG has not yet decided what they will do with regards to the finer points of complex object relicensing. This means that none of your questions above has an answer. And OSMF is not going to decide this behind closed doors without looking out; they'll take a cue or two from what we do. And they are not going to decide it within the next few days either so don't hold your breath. Personally I believe that complex situations like the one you describe above will have to be investigated by a community member - like you did -, and that person should (if possible) take the necessary steps to clean up the situation and then vouch for it (saying, effectively, these objects are OK, I've checked them, believe me). OSMF could then concentrate on producing some advice for the community members doing that kind of work, and making some spot checks to see if thy do it with the diligence required of the job. Ideally, those community members would not be the same people that proclaim the use of loop holes on the mailing lists ;) 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] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
On 12/14/2011 9:45 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: It has been explained already but I'll repeat it - OSMF/LWG has not yet decided what they will do with regards to the finer points of complex object relicensing. This means that none of your questions above has an answer. And OSMF is not going to decide this behind closed doors without looking out; they'll take a cue or two from what we do. And they are not going to decide it within the next few days either so don't hold your breath. So why have people been recommending for months that we remap tainted objects when we still don't know what needs to be remapped? This isn't a rare case, but happens frequently across the U.S. Maybe it's different in places where mappers have not been able to take advantage of road network imports, but most tainted roads I have seen have started out from TIGER. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
Yeah, a healthy chunk of the interstates in Kansas are the same way. I didn't go quite as deep as Nathan but this way is a relevant example: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=33576021 User moonwashed created this way by splitting it from a TIGER way. He made several more edits to it but the last 20 versions have been by agreeing users (including both NE2 and myself) and while that page doesn't show node position changes, I have verified that every single node has been moved since moonwashed last touched it. So in my mind there is no information left in that way that is attributable to the declining user. I would have absolutely no misgivings doing a straight copy/paste to replace that way with an identical duplicate. But I would rather not do so out of respect to the other CT-accepting users who have contributed to that object. Saying that it is up to the community to decide individual objects is nice but I don't think there is enough time for me to evaluate every tainted object in Kansas before April 1 and there sure as hell isn't enough of a community here to help me with such a thankless task. There are a few mappers in the area but if I asked them to deal with this kind of stuff, I'm pretty sure they would run away screaming. I doubt I can expect much outside help either since pretty much everyone is affected and will be working in their own area first. And as long as there is no official word from the foundation about exactly how this change will be technically executed, we can't really proceed in a meaningful way anyway except from trying to contact non-responsive users, which I am doing. So as much as I really don't really care about the license and am happy to relicense under ODbL and even think it might be a good move, I do have some serious doubts about the ambiguity of the process this late in the process... Toby On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/14/2011 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/15/2011 04:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: So why have people been recommending for months that we remap tainted objects when we still don't know what needs to be remapped? If you prefer to wait until the exact rules are laid out for you, that's your choice. Yes, I prefer only doing a make-work task once. Personally I'd rather make a few educated guesses and get to work now. By my educated reasoning, anything from one node to the entire road is tainted, so it's a little hard to make a guess. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
