On 2 February 2012 19:28, Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:02 AM, andrzej zaborowski <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 31 January 2012 18:51, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Looks like about 4% of Austin was balrog-kun; I'm in the process of tagging >>> that odbl=clean right now per his previous request. >> >> I don't believe I made any non-automatic edits in TX, and those are >> already considered clean by the license plugins. >> >> Note also that if you use odbl=clean you need to make sure other edits >> in the history are ODbL-clean and as far as I know there's no general >> way to do that. >> > > Are they also considered clean on > http://odbl.poole.ch/usa-20111208-20120201-poly.html ? There's still a > whole lot of 'dirty' edits by you on there.
82k ways, so yes, looks like some of the name expansion changesets are still counted dirty. Simon Poole mentioned on IRC something may be a little off in his latest stats. > If they're not and they > should be, what can we do to have this page reflect reality better? I'm afraid there's a whole lot that can be done to make it reflect reality better. For starters the page mentions ODbL in the first line while in fact the stats are based on CT-accpetance which is largely orthogonal to ODbL compatibility. Accepting current CT version only confirms to osmf that the data you uploaded is compatible with the current license. You can't derive ODbL-compatibility from that alone. Cheers _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
