On 2 May 2011 08:17, David Murn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 23:18 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > 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. > > Unless youve realigned the ways based on GPS tracks after you traced > from nearmap, tagging the ways as source=survey is incorrect. You can > add a source:name=survey or similar, but if youve traced from a source, > just because you verify it with another source if you havent made any > changes Id suggest leaving source tag as is. >
Yes, it's all based on surveys where I've gone there in person. (How else would I get the name?) > > 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. > > That is what one would hope, but no-one has been able to give a straight > answer. The problem with this, is how many source= tags do they have to > check for and remove? The problem isnt specific to nearmap, it is a > general problem for all data derived from sources using differing > licences (for example, ABS, yahoo or data.gov.au, just in Australia). > It is easier to simply remove every edit from a user than for them to > automate the process of figuring out what was sourced from where. > I just can't see that happening. The damage to the map would be too big! In any case, how do you select the people whose data is to be deleted? The same list of unacceptable sources that is too hard to determine in the first place? Whatever criteria that would be required to identify users could just as easily be applied to ways and nodes, in a much more targeted and far less damaging way. > > 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. > > Is it easily identifiable by you or by an automated process also? Have > you tagged every single edit youve made, when sourcing nearmap, with > their source? I know personally Im sure theres been times when Ive made > a quick edit in potlatch and not thought about changing the source tag. > Well source=nearmap is easily identified by an automated process. It worked for you! As for ones I may have missed, well I will need to be trusted that I haven't missed any, in exactly the same way the other 3390-536=2854 users will have to be trusted that they've never used nearmap. If you don't trust me, then where do you stop? At a blank map? Perhaps I'm *more* trustworthy since I've made the effort to source my input? Maybe all un-sourced data needs to be deleted as well? How much of that is there? Seriously, where do you stop? IMHO, a list of unacceptable sources will *have* to be determined and applied to the map data. That will be the best that can be done. In fact, I don't see any other way. > Hopefully some general visualisation tools will be developed well > > before the license change takes place. > > Again, that is what one would hope, but as no-one is quite sure what > will be affected or how. Part of the problem also is that depending on > when you agreed to the new licence and CTs, they have quite possibly > changed since then, meaning that any visualisation of your data that is > impacted when you accepted it, would possibly look different now, if the > new wording became more compliant with sources you might have used. > > I think it's understood that any visualisation tools will have to keep up with policy changes. -- Andrew
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
