in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license change so far...
i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st. greets, floris looijesteijn On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II <[email protected]> wrote: > Since there's been no response, I plan to start doing this. > > On 1/13/2012 6:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the >> OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that >> it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case: >> >> A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to >> secondary, using essentially an algorithmic approach (a certain subset >> of the state highway system). >> Several years later, I go through and create relations for these routes, >> as well as demoting some of the less-major ones to tertiary. >> >> If the mass-revert were to go forward now, those that I changed would >> remain tertiary, while those I didn't would go back to residential (as >> imported from TIGER). This is obviously not an ideal state of affairs. >> >> So my question is whether this would be an appropriate usage of >> odbl=clean. In other words, if that mapper had not changed it from >> residential to secondary, would I have done the same? If so, can I add >> the tag? >> >> (Apologies if this belongs in tagging, since it's about use of a tag.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
