Sorry to ask such a naive sounding question in this thread where there
are clearly many involved who know *a lot" about the subject, but I am
left rather unsure about what we mean when we say that we need to do
some "re-mapping" of nodes and ways which are in danger of removal when
only contributions from new licence acceptors is allowed in the OSM
database.
Seems to be one of two processes (in order of decreasing level of effort
required):
1. Delete the features contributed by the non-acceptor. Replace with
brand new feature from either gps survey or from acceptable
imagery/mapping sources or combination. If I understand correctly then
if the non-acceptor is the author of version 1 of the feature, then this
will result in loss of all subsequent history as well, so that we will
essentially have version 1 of a new feature and no trace of the previous
feature.
2. Review the history of the feature. Decide if, even though the
original contribution was from a non-acceptor, enough has been done by
other licence-accepting contributors that the feature no longer belongs
to the original contributor. If this is the case, tag with "odbl=clean"
and forget about it.
My question is : Are both of these approaches acceptable from a
legal/ethical perspective and will they both work (ie will both result
in features that will make it into the database following Apr 1st?
For features in my local area (NE Wales) I and others with local
knowledge could clearly follow either or both of these approaches, but
(2) is obviously less time-consuming and preserves much more of other
people's hard work.
Bogus Zaba
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
