Richard Wrote...... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking at gmail.com> wrote: > PAST > > 1) decliner traces a way into OSM > 2) acceptor surveys road and copies in street sign info and turn restriction > info into OSM > 3) decliner bot-a adds maxspeed info > 4) decliner bot-b fixes incorrect maxspeed tag > 5) decliner adds numlanes info > 6) acceptor realigns way to smooth it out > 7) acceptor unabbreviates st to Street > ------------------------------------------- > FUTURE > I think that what should happen now is > a) Acceptor deletes way in its entirety. > b) Acceptor traces way from Bing imagery. > c) acceptor adds in info from 2) and 7) (info from 3 4 5 6 is lost) > The way is now (IMO) squeaky clean to be included under any OSM license. Some have argued that 3) and 4) would be fair game to promote to future OSM as well. The argument goes like this. Purely mechanical edits can not attract copyright as they are not an original creation; they are merely the implementation of a rule. Recreating the work of such a 'bot is trivial. Such ways are artificially inflate the tainted way count. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" If the DWG and the LWG are happy with this then maybe they could alter the owenership of type 3 and 4 edits to be an anonymous accepting contributor. If the LWG or DWG are not happy with this then maybe they could revert the effect of the type 3 and 4 edits without affecting any edits either side of them. This would make the whole situation a lot clearer and enable us to easily determine which roads to remap or trace&name-copy. Nick
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
