Hi, On 27 January 2012 21:52, Toby Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > Specific questions that need an answer: > 1) As Nathan pointed out, nothing currently looks at way > splitting/combining.
While I think it is important to implement the detection of split/combined ways in the final algorithm, I don't think it changes the statistics Mike Collinson quoted by a lot because splits and merges by CT-accepting users will even out with those by non-accepting users. > ... > 3) will the odbl=clean tag be respected? We are closing in on 15,000 > uses of this tag. The biggest issue I see with this tag is that people are setting it based the CT-acceptance of users in the object history. But really (and this is confirmed in various LWG minutes) CT-acceptance doesn't imply ODbL compatibility. The "odbl=clean" tag on the other hand does seem to imply ODbL-compatibility. So really you're only entitled to set odbl=clean on an object if all the information that remains is either: * your own work, or, * from sources that you know are ODbL compatible, like survey by someone you know or import from a Public Domain source. There's no legal basis to assume every user showing green in the license tools is ODbL "clean" and if you make that assumption you're putting OSMF in an unclean situation. I think this is the biggest issue before LWG. To make the switch to ODbL real, they need to come up with a corrected version of Contributor Terms and start asking mappers to accept it ASAP. (the other reason the majority of contracts firmed between contributors and OSMF may be considered invalid is that the users who clicked "Accept" until December were shown an incomplete text of the CT due to a bug) --- BTW here's my answer to Mike Collinson's question I wrote in March 2011: "I think here you have to use a sort of a logarithmic scale and I hope the license change working group is going to use that scale when/if they're deciding whether the moment is right to remove data from the editable database. 7% or 45% or 62% are all insignificantly small if you think of the amount of map data that remains incompatible. Even 98% is insignificantly small if this means that 2% of the userbase's data is going to be dropped. For the license change to not leave the project dead, the number needs to be really close to 100% of the user collected (i.e. not imported) data. 1% of a couple hunderds GB is really a lot of data, 0.1% is still probably more than some of the individual country extracts, and then 0.01% is probably an amount that we could afford losing if everyone put a lot of effort in fixing the breakage. " Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
