David,
On 01/04/12 16:50, David Earl wrote:
Suggestion 1
I'd like to suggest we invent a tag which says "I have checked this
object for changes by non-accepters and personally verified it against
sources independent of the changes of those non-accepters who made
changes", so that when that tag is added, the changes the non-accepter
made become my responsibility.
odbl=clean is that tag, and already used by OSMI and editors. It is a
bit questionable to use it on stuff that "I could have mapped myself". I
suggest that odbl=clean only be added if you have indeed modified the
object in a way that you believe obliterates any previously held
copyright by a non-agreer.
If this has resulted in a situation where the object is now, again, in
the same state it was before a non-agreer toched it, then you *can*
place odbl=clean for quick results but after the next weekly planet dump
the OSMI will (should!) pick up the situation and say "the disagreer's
contribution is now irrelevant because none of it is present in the
final object, so it's clean", i.e. odbl=clean is not even strictly
necessary.
Suggestion 2
A very common pattern is
* non-accepter adds a feature F which is joined to one or more ways W at
node new N; this contaminates the whole of W even though all they've
done is inserted a node into it.
* lots of other people make changes to W in other respects, whose edits
would be lost
In this case, I think it would be reasonable to say that if N is
inserted between two other nodes such that the three form a straight
line (to within some fairly generous tolerance) that the way is not
affected and the node can be removed from it along with the genuinely
offending way without affecting the one involved as a side effect, and
needn't be marked as such in the inspector.
Could be done, but is a fairly complicated computation. I'd rather
someone removed the node and tagged the way odbl=clean.
Suggestion 3
There is a particularly pernicious pattern where user 'ulfl' (others
too, but by far the most prolific) went round some years ago changing
lots of tag names without changing anything else, and he has now
explicitly declined the CT, so there are now lots of real changes on top
which will be lost because of these purely mechanical changes.
I think we should not count these as significant edits for the purposes
of the license change.
Yes. I think there is a consensus that such an edit does not give you
(enough) copyright to demand that the object is now "yours". Some people
making such mechanical edits have been cooperative in identifying those
of their changesets which have been mechanically created (e.g.
balrog-kun), and we have started to compile a list of such changesets on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WTFE (under "changeset overrides").
I have contacted ulfl a while ago asking for similar help but have not
received a response. I reckon it is going to be down to us, then, to
compile the list by inspecting his past changesets, or at least the
larger ones.
I have a facility where I can enter the changeset IDs collected on the
wiki page into OSMI, and changes from those changesets will then not be
highlighted there or in the editors any more. This is a manual process
and doesn't happen daily but I try to monitor the page.
Feel free to add ulfl changesets to the list if you are confident that
they have been created mechanically.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
