> Incidentally, is just "knowing the footpaths" evidence enough to tag with > "odbl=clean"? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with "iffy" > sources?
As I read it, if the nodes along the way are clean then by marking the way odbl clean you're just checking the properties are clean... so if it is just a highway=footway and you know it exists there shouldn't be a problem. Craig On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Incidentally, is just "knowing the footpaths" evidence enough to tag with > "odbl=clean"? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with "iffy" > sources? > > I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the > Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually > walk the paths again or just tag with "odbl=clean" > > Thanks, > Nick > -----Robert Norris <[email protected]> wrote: ----- > > To: <[email protected]> > From: Robert Norris <[email protected]> > Date: 23/03/2012 12:07AM > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update > > Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire. > > So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways > (mainly paths & tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst > cycling or walking. > > Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought... > > First via using JOSM it was telling me some ways might have problems, the > history check wasn't a green CT for the user > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/essjayhch. > > Initially I thought odd, since they have agreed to the CTs, however checking > their diary entry revealed they have been entering in C classifications for > roads from Hampshire Council Council (via > http://www3.hants.gov.uk/adoptedroadsearch/). It's not clear this is allowed > - hence I assume essjayhch has been 'black listed' some how - but not > reverted as I guess these edits will be removed/reverted come the license > change switch. They also seem to have entered in many footpath refs too. > > Clearly I can't stick a odbl=clean on any such way. > > Next I then discover Andy Street had been also using Hampshire Council > Council as a source reference in various changesets, such as: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/5184209 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/8257081 > > Possibly this could a reason why he can not accept the CTs > > In my check the other day I did not check for this type of source reference. > This also means potentially any of his 2000 changesets could be problematic > - so not just after 1st April 2010 for the OS Locator/Streetview allowed > data. > > > PS Thanks Nick Austin for your efforts in Portsmouth (and all over > Hampshire). I don't have the patience / time / willing to do that amount of > remapping. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
