On 3 May 2013 23:22, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > * some objects whose ID had not changed and who had been created by someone > who rejected the license were nonetheless kept if it could be shown that > they had been changed in a major way since; > > * some objects that had been freshly created by people agreeing with the > license change, but that were more or less copies of other objects from > non-agreers, were removed even though they had a different ID.
The redaction bot code doesn't generally do that and if there were such cases then they were an insignificant minority compared to those where the change of the object's ID meant it was considered an entirely different object. It's strange that you'd negate that. > > I will not discuss this sub-thread further; object IDs are not stable and > nothing we did during the license change is suitable as a counter argument. The fact that the IDs are not persistent had been pointed out several times during the process and both you and the LWG have said (this is quite clearly stated their meeting minutes) that this isn't an issue big enough to bother. There were some statistics posted on the list and on IRC (from Simon Poole) stating it affected 0.1 to 1% of the database which is in the millions of objects range. Cheers _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
