On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: >> From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 5:42 AM >> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Cleanup >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> >> wrote: >> >> I suggest that we can have more tainted data removed automatically, >> >> > It appears that the bot is deleting ways more extensive than those >> proposed. >> >> Ah, that's my fault. I miss-stated the scope when I requested the >> removal. The result will be the equivalent of the automated cleanup >> after the license change, for those three accounts. I'm inclined to >> have it continue; this is making remapping faster / easier. Apologies >> for my confusing the issue. >> >> Last time, some nodes were cleaned up after the ways were removed. I >> expect this will be similar. >> >> Best regards, >> Richard > > I'm not sure what the best way to proceed.
I think that it is. We're just a few weeks ahead of everybody else. > Proceeding with the node removals > will still leave stray nodes as I believe there are false negatives in the > license change algorithms used. Do you have examples so that the algorithm and process can be checked? > When I suggested a second run targeting > items where all versions were created by one of the accounts it was because > the first run had essentially missed some objects. Did you present examples to check? Again, if the process or algorithm can be improved, perhaps we should woork towards that? _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
