If the data had been left tagged as not CT then OSM would have deleted it in 2012. The only difference would be that any edits you made from now to then would also be deleted. Your concerns should be brought to OSM's attention. If they have a way of deleting my edits that doesn't impact your work I'm happy to make the changes in that way.
Cheerio John On 6 June 2011 21:08, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: > Well, not sure what to say, John. You've deleted stuff that I've worked on > without my consent, so there's a problem. If the features you had deleted > were still v1 that you had added, I could see an argument in support of what > you've done, but many of the features appear to be >v1 with more than just > your name attached to them, so you're unilaterally deleting features that > are no longer purely yours. As one of the people affected by this, I do not > give you this consent. > > --G > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:50 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No at the time the data was added there wasn't a problem. The problem >> arose when the new CT retroactively changed the previously inserted data. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> >> On 6 June 2011 18:30, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: >> >>> "What should John do?" >>> >>> John should accept the fact that the data he has added were added under >>> the terms he agreed to and retroactively changing his mind and deleting >>> everything is not an acceptable option. Your unilateral actions have >>> impacted more than just "your" data. >>> >>> That is what John should do. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> My preference would have been to have my CT put back to none >>>> acceptance. This has been requested in OSM Talk but I've been told this >>>> was >>>> not possible. >>>> >>>> My next preference would be to have all my edits rolled back, again this >>>> request has been ignored more than once. >>>> >>>> I don't feel at all comfortable with the new CT for all the work I've >>>> done. I've used CANVEC as an example, its not so much the .odbl as the >>>> open >>>> endedness of the CT. I can work with the new CT by restricting my sources >>>> to ones that I have complete license control over which basically means >>>> carrying the GPS than working from the traces but no imports. >>>> >>>> I agree selecting and deleting manually is not nice but once its done >>>> the the community can repair the damage fairly quickly and it does remove >>>> the problem data. >>>> >>>> as Richard says "Question open to the room. What now? What should John >>>> do? What should we do?" >>>> >>>> I'm open to suggestions either of the first two would be more than >>>> acceptable. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Cheerio John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6 June 2011 18:10, Gordon Dewis <gor...@pinetree.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All... >>>>> >>>>> I just took a look at the damage that's been done and I have to say >>>>> that I am extremely unhappy. I spent quite a bit of time a few months back >>>>> cleaning up many of the streets that are he has removed from the OSM. I >>>>> would respectfully ask John that he rollback the changesets in question. >>>>> >>>>> Once someone else has modified something added by someone else I think >>>>> you've given up your rights to it. In this case I touched virtually every >>>>> street in Westboro and Hintonburg and now I find that my work has been >>>>> removed, too. >>>>> >>>>> --Gordon (Keeper of Maps) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > Acting on your advice I accepted the new CT. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I recall discussion you asked what the license was all about and >>>>>> why was there so much chatter about it? And if I recall my reply, it >>>>>> was something along the lines of, you could read it all and make up >>>>>> your mind, or you can accept that I think the new license is a big >>>>>> improvement for OSM. Is that about right? >>>>>> >>>>>> > On looking more deeply into >>>>>> > the subject I note that I have retrospectively allowed OSM to >>>>>> license >>>>>> > anything I have ever added to the map in any way they wish. >>>>>> Currently it is >>>>>> > odbl but the CT allows anything, the license seems to be an ever >>>>>> changing >>>>>> > document. >>>>>> >>>>>> You appear not to have looked deeply enough. The CTs allow additional >>>>>> license changes ONLY, to another "Free and Open" license, and ONLY by >>>>>> approval of a 2/3 majority of the current OSM contributors at the >>>>>> time. [well, 2/3 of those who reply to their OSM registered email >>>>>> within three weeks.] So a new license has to be Free and Open and >>>>>> approved by the community. Or perhaps you've just changed your mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Looking at my data I have a couple of footpaths that were entered >>>>>> from a GPS >>>>>> > track and one or two other items these I'm happy to have under the >>>>>> new CT >>>>>> > but very little else. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I find it is not possible to retract my acceptance. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I have made three separate inquiries on how to get all my edits >>>>>> removed but >>>>>> > all have been ignored. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So I can see no other option than to remove them all manually. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your premise is flawed. It's not "your" data once you contribute to a >>>>>> collective project like OpenStreetMap, the data belongs to all of us. >>>>>> It's not your well if you help the village dig it. You can't decide >>>>>> you would rather use it as a latrine. That's a decision the village >>>>>> has to take together. >>>>>> >>>>>> The license change is an exceptional situation, in which we are >>>>>> offering each contributor the option to have their contributions >>>>>> removed, granting far more control of their contributed data than >>>>>> would be expected. It is an exceptionally cautious approach by the >>>>>> OpenStreetMap Foundation and generous to a fault to those with qualms >>>>>> about the license. >>>>>> >>>>>> > If someone else wishes to do an import from CANVEC most can be >>>>>> replaced >>>>>> > quite quickly, however I do not want to take the responsibility that >>>>>> OSM in >>>>>> > its wisdom will change the license yet again to something that is >>>>>> not >>>>>> > acceptable to CANVEC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Canvec and GeoBase data are already approved for CT/ODbL. I think >>>>>> those were announced here many months ago. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you are happy with CT/ODbL with the data you mentioned above. So >>>>>> you don't have an objection to CT/ODbL. Canvec and GeoBase data are >>>>>> already compatible with CT/ODbL, so there is no need for you (or >>>>>> anybody else) to remove that data based on CT/ODbL. Is that correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> > I also note that according to Fredrick some mappers have already >>>>>> been >>>>>> > deleting entries for people who have not accepted the CT so it >>>>>> seemed to be >>>>>> > an appropriate time to start deleting. >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean here? In ΒΆ4 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006044.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Frederik's email counsels against exactly what you think that you've >>>>>> done. He says that prematurely deleting data of license decliners >>>>>> would be inappropriate and cause unneeded community tension. But you >>>>>> went ahead and deleted stuff. And Frederik's email has nothing to do >>>>>> with this situation. You've accepted CT/ODbL. >>>>>> >>>>>> > Sorry for any inconvenience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Question open to the room. What now? What should John do? What >>>>>> should we do? >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Talk-ca mailing list >>>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org >>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
