>>>>> "rf" == Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> writes:
rf> Sorry, you've puzzled me a bit here. rf> You state that it's better to cite "how much data would be deleted". rf> However, that directly contradicts your previous paragraph, in which you rf> quote, um, the number of users, not the amount of data. rf> rf> Reading odbl.de, although "60% of users" in Europe have accepted the new rf> contributor terms, that actually equates to between 80% and 92% of nodes, rf> and between 70% and 93% of ways. In North America, your "40% of users" is rf> 54%-94% of nodes, and 66-85% of ways.[1] Hello Richard, It's quite simple: I object to the OSMF using what I consider to be very misleading statistics in communication on the ODBL process. Michael Collinson's message can be interpreted as saying that 0.2% of users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. I point out that a more reasonable way of presenting the data is that between 40 and 55% (depending on the region) of users haven't accepted the new contributor terms. I then argue that the most important statistic in deciding whether to go ahead with the big delete is how much data would be removed. odbl.de indicates (for Europe) 80% of nodes, 70% of ways, 50% of relations -- much lower for other areas such as Australia or the USA --- are at version 1 with a user having accepted the CT. As you point out, this is a lower bound on the amount of data that would be retained, since objects with a version > 1 and only CT-accepting users would also be retained. There used to be a map at http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ highlighting how much data would be retained, but it seems to have disappeared. On a related note concerning the process, I find it unreasonable for OSMF to ask people to accept the new CT without having first decided on a tolerability threshold on loss of data. -- Eric Marsden _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
