Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
"Frederik Ramm" frede...@remote.org wrote on 16/12/2011 at 19:03:27 +1100 subject "[OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?" : > I am experimenting with using the tag "odbl=clean" for this, and will > build support for that into the OSMI relicensing view. But the matter > still needs to be discussed properly, and with OSM Inspector not being > an "official" site in any way, it is not for me to say whether such a > tag would be honoured when the day comes. +1 I cleand up New Caledonia some month ago, but if this tag was existing, it would be s much easier to acheive the exact same result. Especially if in routing restriction relation some members are tainted. -- Sincerely Hendrik Oesterlin - email hendrikmail2...@yahoo.de ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > I think it would be good to have a tag that mappers can use to say "this > object is clean, I have personally checked the history and/or reverted it to > a relicensable state, any contributions by non-agreeing users are not present > in the current version any longer". +1 replacing tainted data is a pain with current tools. there must be a some support to define an object (not just a changeset) as clean. This is the only chance to keep object history. This should apply to all nodes if this tag is set on a way. At least for nodes without additional tags this should be a reasonable assumption. No one will really draw or verify way nodes independent from creating/verifying a way. tainted nodes with additional tags should retain only the position. This is really important to keep connectivity of the road network intact. if the node tags are tainted we can not keep them. For relations this seems be to tricky and I would not go that far to push a odbl clean flag to it's members > > Then, if you revert an object to an earlier version, you'd just add that tag > to express then even though the object history does contain contributions by > non-agreers, it can remain. > > I am experimenting with using the tag "odbl=clean" for this, and will build > support for that into the OSMI relicensing view. But the matter still needs > to be discussed properly, and with OSM Inspector not being an "official" site > in any way, it is not for me to say whether such a tag would be honoured when > the day comes. > I assume the LWG will follow your implementation as Simon's later post in this thread indicated. The final switch is on DB level so we should do some dry run and compare with yours well before April 1st > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
Frederik Ramm writes: >>I guess "ct=clean" would be better since there may be data which is usable >>under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. > >But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not >usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to remap it now, right? Maybe so, but it's not shown by the usual CT status maps. odbl=clean (or perhaps dbcl=clean?) would be a further tag to add in addition to ct=clean. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
Hi, On 12/16/11 14:08, Steve Bennett wrote: ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to "fix" names? Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes "clean"? No. Presumably there are some principles based on the "derived works" language in Creative Commons (IIRC...) But do we really know what a "derived work" for a single fact is? No. Does the test "does not contain traces of non-CT-accepting users' work" hold up? How is "trace" defined? etc etc What do you suggest we do? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant > * Disagreeing user B adds name=Fred's Pizza Place > * Agreeing user C changes name=Tom's Pasta Emporium > > this node is clearly "clean" already, because it does not contain traces of > B's work any longer. However a quite similar example... > > * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant > * Disagreeing user B adds name=Freds Pizza Place > * Agreeing user C changes name=Fred's Pizza Place > > ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the > place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to "fix" > names? Do we have any clear policy spelling out what constitutes "clean"? Presumably there are some principles based on the "derived works" language in Creative Commons (IIRC...) But do we really know what a "derived work" for a single fact is? Does the test "does not contain traces of non-CT-accepting users' work" hold up? How is "trace" defined? etc etc Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
Hi, On 12/16/11 12:12, Ed Avis wrote: I guess "ct=clean" would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. But are we interested in such data? I mean - if there *was* data not usable under ODbL, then it would be a good idea to remap it now, right? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
Frederik Ramm writes: >I am experimenting with using the tag "odbl=clean" for this, I guess "ct=clean" would be better since there may be data which is usable under the CTs but is not yet distributable under ODbL+DbCL. (Recall that the CTs require the content must be distributable under the current licence, which means CC-BY-SA - this was clarified a few months ago by the LWG I believe. Of course in the majority of cases CT-able data is also ODbL-able.) -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
Maning, On 12/16/11 08:26, maning sambale wrote: As what the subjects says, instead of removing and recreating tainted data, I think it's best (in some cases) to revert to the last known clean version. This makes sense. Sometimes you will not even have to revert to a "last known clean version", for example if you have a node where * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant, name=foo * Disagreeing user B adds cuisine=italian * Agreeing user C adds wheelchair=yes then it is sufficient that you remove "cuisine=italian", you don't need to remove wheelchair=yes also. However, if you do that, then the object still looks "tainted" to anyone taking a quick look at the history (user B does not vanish from the history). Only closer examination reveals that user B's contribution is now void. And it gets more complicated: * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant * Disagreeing user B adds name=Fred's Pizza Place * Agreeing user C changes name=Tom's Pasta Emporium this node is clearly "clean" already, because it does not contain traces of B's work any longer. However a quite similar example... * Agreeing user A creates the node with amenity=restaurant * Disagreeing user B adds name=Freds Pizza Place * Agreeing user C changes name=Fred's Pizza Place ,,, suddenly isn't that clear-cut anymore. Has user C really surveyed the place, or has he maybe just run a bot that used complex rules to "fix" names? I think it would be good to have a tag that mappers can use to say "this object is clean, I have personally checked the history and/or reverted it to a relicensable state, any contributions by non-agreeing users are not present in the current version any longer". Then, if you revert an object to an earlier version, you'd just add that tag to express then even though the object history does contain contributions by non-agreers, it can remain. I am experimenting with using the tag "odbl=clean" for this, and will build support for that into the OSMI relicensing view. But the matter still needs to be discussed properly, and with OSM Inspector not being an "official" site in any way, it is not for me to say whether such a tag would be honoured when the day comes. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
As what the subjects says, instead of removing and recreating tainted data, I think it's best (in some cases) to revert to the last known clean version. Do other tried this approach in re-mapping? -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
