The guidelines were formulated for data additions. This should guard
against things being entered into the data base that are questionable.
This is a data deletion - a very different thing. In this case it is
required, ethically at least.
I have looks at some 6 in 'my area' and they all should be removed.
That is some 6 out of ~2,600... don't have time for more at the moment.
A poor sample size but 100% for deletion.
Again for 'my area' there is no easy copyright free method of name
verification - they will all have to go.
On 28-Aug-17 10:56 AM, john whelan wrote:
>I haven't seen any compelling evidence or discussion about whether or
not the data in question was illegally copied into OSM. All we have to
go on is the first paragraph of Frederik's initial post. I'm not
questioning Frederik's (or any DWG members') passion or dedication to
the project, but we are the contributors and I would hope we can
expect some extra modicum of transparency when a proposal of this
magnitude is made.
It has been brought to the OSMF's attention. It has been verified
that there are "Easter Eggs" from Google are in there. I must say
that I agree with Paul Norman's point of view, in this case there is
no choice.
Having said that there are costs involved in cleaning it up even if
its only people time.
The decision to me lies between deleting the value in name="xyz
street" for all the highways touched or seeing if we reduce the work
by being more selective and verifying some of the names.
Unfortunately if we want to ask someone to remove data copied from OSM
in the future our case is much stronger if we have deleted all the
suspect data ourselves on this occasion when it has been brought to
our attention and verified that there are "Easter eggs" in our data
and I think you have to take that into account.
Cheerio John
On 27 August 2017 at 20:40, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com
<mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com
<mailto:penor...@mac.com>> wrote:
On 8/27/2017 10:29 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
I strongly disagree. As a group of people who have
received extra-judicial powers in the OSM community, they
should be expected to follow community guidelines to a
higher degree than the rest of the community.
As the publisher of the OSM database, the OSMF has various
legal obligations. When we become aware of data that has been
illegally copied into OSM we need to stop distributing that
data, generally by deleting it and redacting the old versions
so they are no longer accessible. It's worth discussing if we
can refine the identification of data illegally copied data,
but we need to remove it in the end, regardless of if we want to.
I haven't seen any compelling evidence or discussion about whether
or not the data in question was illegally copied into OSM. All we
have to go on is the first paragraph of Frederik's initial post.
I'm not questioning Frederik's (or any DWG members') passion or
dedication to the project, but we are the contributors and I would
hope we can expect some extra modicum of transparency when a
proposal of this magnitude is made.
I'm glad this discussion is happening now, but I hope we can
expect to see it happen again if something else comes up in the
future.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
