On 26 April 2011 21:24, David Murn <[email protected]> wrote: > > How many OSM users have accepted the new terms, without fully > understanding that sources they have used in the past prohibit them from > doing so. > > Using my australian test extract from 21/03/2011, I found that 3390 > users have made edits in the area of interest (the Australian extract > available on osmaustralia.org). > > Of these 3390 users, 536 have used the tag source=nearmap at least once. > > Of these 536 users, 134 have agreed to the ODbL+CTs. >
I'm almost certainly one of those 134. I must admit I didn't read the new license too closely, but nothing seemed out of order. In the back of my mind I was probably treating it like all the other various licenses I've agreed to in the past - as something that applies from the moment I agree to it. In hindsight, it's quite obvious that the new agreement has to be retrospective. Thankfully, I've been careful to use source=nearmap. I've also been making a point to go around and survey streets I've traced, check their alignment, name them and set source=survey. However, there have been times when I have traced buildings. That's much more difficult to survey. In any case, I expect that when it comes time to actually apply the new license, any source=nearmap data will disappear leaving behind all my re-licensable data. I short, I don't see any problems. All my current data conforms to the current license, and the data that doesn't conform to the new license is easily identifiable and removable. I would, of course, like to see what data is incompatible with the new license so that I can more focus my surveying efforts. Hopefully some general visualisation tools will be developed well before the license change takes place. -- Andrew
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
