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?
"Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] *and where those contributions have since been superceded or "washed out" by subsequent changes*" Emphasis mine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just "clean it" by adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version, and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node tagged "amenity = pub", that happens to have been moved, the tag removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction. Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging anything with it. > 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" You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
