On 2012-05-29 10:43, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
wrote:
Apparently this ownership is more complex then
at first sight.
A way is defined by its nodes and its tags.
Maarten only took a look at the tags.
cetest did not only add a residential tag, but
created the nodes (Version 1) that defines this
particular way with GPS acquired data,
later assisted by satellite data, even before
Bing became available.
way data:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
Nodes data (just one)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/44729547/history
Interesting. If you say you created them from GPS data, why do they
have source=AND and an AND_nodes tag? That would be indicative of the
AND import. But you did not import the AND data in that region by hand?
The fact that the nodes were created on 2007-09-30 and the way was
created on 2007-09-20 does indicate some editing.
Regards,
Maarten
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Maarten Deen [mailto:[email protected]]
Verzonden: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:11 AM
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On 2012-05-29 09:49, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 5/29/2012 3:00 AM, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2012-05-29 08:41, Thomas Davie wrote:
"It's So Funny" has not copied your data here, he has simply
modified it (in this case, changing highway=residential to
highway=unclassified). When the redaction bot is unleashed, if you
have still not accepted the CTs (do you have a particular reason
not
to?), this data will be deleted. There is no problem here.
It's So Funny changed a way that was created by CeesW on
2012-01-09:
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144917597/history>
The previous way was deleted by CeesW in the same changeset.
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/7539781/history>
So the person to confront would be CeesW, not It's So Funny.
Offending
changeset seems to be
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10345339>
I don't see anything wrong with CeesW's change either:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/7539781/history
AND has accepted the CT. The only thing cetest did was change
unclassified to residential. This was kept by CeesW, but the whole
area is a residential landuse, so I see no problem with that tag.
The official stance from AND is that the data in the OSM database on
march 1 2010 can be used under ODbL, but previously not-entered data
from the original dataset is also not allowed to enter OSM under
ODbL.
That clarification came on april 5th (discussed on talk-nl):
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nl/2012-April/013870.html
This is months after the changes made by CeesW. So his actions
(deleting
and recreating) were extremly premature, in hindsight unnecessary and
can be called strange at any point in time.
You'd almost think it was an error on his part, but deleting and
recreating the same ways in the one changeset does not support that
view
very much.
Regards,
Maarten
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
