On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:55 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 August 2010 22:22, Grant Slater <[email protected]> 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?
Are you suggesting that such a bulk edit has happened? I'm not aware of edits that match that description perhaps you can link to the changesets for reference? Presuming that regular mapper, A_Mapper surveys and uploads their neighbourhood, Mapperton, then other mapper, O_Mapper shifts everything by a random 0.1mm, a superficial look at the current data would show that O_Mapper touched all the data last. A look at node/way history would show that A_Mapper created version 1 of that data. Given the example above, and presuming that A_Mapper chose to accept the license upgrade and O_Mapper did not, what would you recommend for the data? a) leave as version 2 b) revert to version 1 c) delete data d) something else. What about the reverse? What would you recommend be done with the data if A_Mapper did not accept the license upgrade, but O_Mapper did accept? There is a thread on osm-dev@ discussing how to model OSM data regarding ODbL/CT acceptance. What you describe above sounds a little different than the current discussion on osm-dev@, what would you call it? "edits vs. trivial edits", "user edits vs. automated edits" ? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
