Frederik Ramm wrote: > Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month > "only edits to non-tainted objects accepted" phase would actually make > people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And > if so, why?
Can we agree on the fact, that some of the recent edits are done on tainted objects that will go away in the final cut-off (together with those fresh edits)? I don't know all the reasons why people do these kind of edits, presumable they don't know that the object is tainted (and that it means their work is deemed to be deleted in the final cut-off), or they simply refuse to believe that OSMF will delete so much data in their region. And even if you know about this stuff, it's not always easy to exactly identify the problematic objects and be really sure that your edit will survive the cut-off. Furthermore the identification of problems requires certain amount of human work, which seems quite irrational - why should we waste precious human time for something that will be done algorithmically by machines in the end anyway? The extra phase would tell all of the contributors trying to edit tainted objects something like: look, this data will soon go away together with your current work, so either try to remap it to a compliant state, or don't bother at all. It will bring more articulate warning to contributors in problematic regions and the rest can be at least really sure that their work won't be for nothing. It's definitely better than a user going to bed one day with a good feeling about their recent edits and waking up the next morning seeing them gone. In some regions people will be upset about not being able to do simple edits, but I still think it's a better solution then the alternative. Best regards, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
