Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[andrzej zaborowski]

Hi,

On 21 December 2011 15:06, Ed Loach  wrote:
>> On 13 December 2011 23:03, David Earl
>>  wrote:
>> > What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the
>> moment even by
>> > a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a
>> critical mass.
>>
>> I'm responding to this old thread because now I think whoever
>> made the
>> criteria could have answered the question asked here.  But really
>> there's probably no answer because the date was pulled out of thin
>> air.
>
> Well, I'm not on any committee, but I find it hard how anyone can't
> think there is a critical mass. Over 95% of the data will be
> retained, and this figure is increasing weekly both due to new
> acceptances and of course ongoing mapping by those who have already
> accepted.

I'm not claiming that's a bad date, just trying to find an explanation
to how the decision process works (and why David Earl's question would
never be answered).  I'm seeing the license process has run over most
of the project's normal working rules by now.  For example (but really
these are some of many details):

* the currently proposed "What is clear" criteria based on a
individual object's history.  A couple of months ago [1] Frederik
wrote:
"There are a number of other reasons why IDs could "break". [...]
Relying on numeric IDs is never going to work, and there is no way how
this could be made to work in the future."
And now the whole process which is supposed to be legally sound is
supposed to work based on those IDs.  It's trivial to detect merges,
splits, and tag copy/pasting specially since the changesets have been
introduced and most usual edits happen inside a single changeset.
Considering that first year IT students have to implement pattern
recognition that can read text there's really no technical excuse to
not detect that nodes that belonged to one way now belong to another.

* at the same time proposed is a "meta" tag odbl= that is further from
the on the round rule than perhaps any other tagging devised until
now.  The "don't tag for the render" rule (where renderer refers to
any particular tool using the OSM *map* database) has just gone down
the drain.

* the body who's supposed to "support rather than govern" the project
is on its way to remove map data.  Tangentially, note that the CT
1.2.4 document, which over a hundred thousand people has been made
accept, has been written in such a way that it doesn't disallow
ODbL-incompatible data being contributed, and people have accepted the
terms on that basis [2].  In effect no one can know what is or isn't
incompatible.  But Frederik's and Simon Poole's visualisations in some
ways imply that whatever passes the "What is clean" test is ODbL
compatible and possibly any free-and-open-license-compatible.  As a
result several of my friend mappers are under attack from authors of
CC-By-SA data which now shows as green on those visualisations.  It's
very hard to explain to them that those maps are some person's
viewpoint based on information that is orthogonal to the new license
compatibility, and that their work has not been "stolen".  Which only
makes it harder to convince those authors to agree to the new license
(and shouldn't this, and the remapping going on, really be somebody
else's task?).
Does that mean that LWG needs to ask all of those who agreed to CT
1.2.4 to accept a new version of the contract, if it wants to switch
to ODbL? (incidentally tonight I found that the OpenStreetMap website
has not been displaying the full Contributor Terms document to the
people agreeing for the last perhaps three months, due to a bug --
basically since the introduction of version 1.2.4 [3])  How does that
relate to the < 4 months time left to find out what is or isn't new
license compatible?

Cheers

1. 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Blatant-case-of-tagging-for-the-renderer-tt6633546.html
2. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary
3. 
https://github.com/balrog-kun/openstreetmap-website/commit/fa7e099d840f1214a4a3339873bc39ed52f0a485

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Ed Loach]

Andrzej wrote:

> On 13 December 2011 23:03, David Earl
>  wrote:
> [...]
> > What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the
> moment even by
> > a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a
> critical mass.
> 
> I'm responding to this old thread because now I think whoever
> made the
> criteria could have answered the question asked here.  But really
> there's probably no answer because the date was pulled out of thin
> air.  

Well, I'm not on any committee, but I find it hard how anyone can't
think there is a critical mass. Over 95% of the data will be
retained, and this figure is increasing weekly both due to new
acceptances and of course ongoing mapping by those who have already
accepted. While there are still a large number of people who have at
one time or another signed up to the project who haven't yet
accepted, of those who have accepted or denied, over 99% have
accepted. Again the exact percentage is still increasing as efforts
are made to contact people who may have made a small number of edits
in the past and OSM don't have their current email address so they
are unaware of what is happening, but are more likely to accept than
not if they can be reached.

Anyway, I don't know whether there are any precise numeric criteria,
but if there were I would have expected 95% of data retained and 99%
of responders accepting to be fairly high criteria and ones that we
have surpassed already, so as far as I'm concerned 1st April could
just have easily been 1st January.

Ed





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[andrzej zaborowski]

Hi,

On 13 December 2011 23:03, David Earl  wrote:
[...]
> What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even by
> a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical mass.

I'm responding to this old thread because now I think whoever made the
criteria could have answered the question asked here.  But really
there's probably no answer because the date was pulled out of thin
air.  There are old comments in the mailing list archives from LWG
members that when and how to measure if enough data is ready, would be
decided later by the contributors at that time.  I think the reason
this hasn't happened is that the LWG and the board work like
committees (for some time, perhaps not since the beginning).  A
committee can easily allow itself to change its mind or not answer
questions and it has to be noted that this is none of the committee
members' fault.  It's just how committees work.  Their time is too
valuable to be spent answering every single question asked or
considering lesser problems (it really is, since they meet once every
some time), which frees a committee from having to justify many
decisions.  It also has the leisure of having a high authority (it's
assumed to be an expert group even in a do-cracy) but at the same time
not having to stick to everything it says, which is unique.  Now a
license change is generally a terribly complex thing to execute and I
guess there's no other way to do it than through a committee with an
assigned mandate, who won't stop once it gains momentum; so we have to
live with that.

Cheers
--
some fortunes I just found:

The weaker the data available upon which to base one's conclusion,
the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give
the data authenticity.

Cruickshank's Law of Committees:
If a committee is allowed to discuss a bad idea long enough, it
will inevitably decide to implement the idea simply because so
much work has already been done on it.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Simon Poole]

Sorry but Frederik and my numbers (odbl.poole.ch) are compatible 
(odbl.de naturally not, RTFM). Just because some areas look like a big 
red blob, doesn't mean that are lot of useful (ie non-imported) data is 
being lost, look at  Spain for example.


Simon

Am 14.12.2011 02:12, schrieb Jo:
The numbers come from Frederik's map and some areas really look 
dramatic. odbl.poole.ch  and http://odbl.de come 
to very optimistic conclusions. Possibly because they only consider 
the last contributor to an object or another metric which doesn't hold 
water.


Jo

2011/12/14 Simon Poole mailto:si...@poole.ch>>

David

I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is
clear that in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less
than 5%.

See odbl.poole.ch 

Simon



David Earl mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com>> schrieb:



On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo mailto:winfi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and
that is of the people who had to speak out their opinion.

That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same
as declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a
quarter to a third of the map seems to me to be the project
committing suicide. It will improve no doubt as time goes on,
but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the 90+%
of data survival to proceed.

Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and
orange is ideological, it's surely mostly about people who
have moved on, in interests, email addresses or mortality who
we'll just never hear from. If it were just their edits, I'd
be much less concerned, but it's the way it kills everyone
else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted the
original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken
the earlier work away too.

I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided
an easy means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly
optimistic about people replying - I run a membership database
and find maybe 10% of people change their email addresses each
year, and half of those don't tell me, and that's when they've
paid an annual sub to belong.

Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold?
I'm not being rhetorical, I really would like to know.

David 



-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten

Mail gesendet.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Jo]

The numbers come from Frederik's map and some areas really look dramatic.
odbl.poole.ch and http://odbl.de come to very optimistic conclusions.
Possibly because they only consider the last contributor to an object or
another metric which doesn't hold water.

Jo

2011/12/14 Simon Poole 

> David
>
> I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that
> in terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%.
>
> See odbl.poole.ch
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> David Earl  schrieb:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo  wrote:
>> > Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of
>> the people who had to speak out their opinion.
>>
>> That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as
>> declining for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third
>> of the map seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will
>> improve no doubt as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the
>> threshold to be in the 90+% of data survival to proceed.
>>
>> Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is
>> ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in
>> interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If
>> it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it
>> kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted
>> the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the
>> earlier work away too.
>>
>> I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy
>> means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people
>> replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change
>> their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and
>> that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong.
>>
>> Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being
>> rhetorical, I really would like to know.
>>
>> David
>
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail
> gesendet.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Jo]

2011/12/14 David Earl 

>
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo  wrote:
> > Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of
> the people who had to speak out their opinion.
>
> That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining
> for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map
> seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt
> as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the
> 90+% of data survival to proceed.
>

Then the whole process would drag on forever. It's good a definite date has
been set and we can all, as a community, start working towards the goal of
'rescuing' as much as possible.

>
> Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is
> ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in
> interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If
> it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it
> kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted
> the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the
> earlier work away too.
>
> I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy
> means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people
> replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change
> their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and
> that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong.
>

I tried and out of a few hundred people I contacted in Belgium and the
Netherlands, 20 responded and maybe 15 said yes (I also contacted people
who had already explicitly declined).


> Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being
> rhetorical, I really would like to know.
>
> David
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Simon Poole]

David

I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers from, but it is clear that in 
terms of outright deletions we are talking of less than 5%.

See odbl.poole.ch

Simon



David Earl  schrieb:

>On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo  wrote:
>> Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is
>of
>the people who had to speak out their opinion.
>
>That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as
>declining
>for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the
>map
>seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no
>doubt
>as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in
>the
>90+% of data survival to proceed.
>
>Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is
>ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in
>interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from.
>If
>it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way
>it
>kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they
>deleted
>the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the
>earlier work away too.
>
>I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy
>means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people
>replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people
>change
>their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and
>that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong.
>
>Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not
>being
>rhetorical, I really would like to know.
>
>David
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[David Earl]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Jo  wrote:
> Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of
the people who had to speak out their opinion.

That's not the point. Since not making a decision is the same as declining
for the purposes of data survival, deleting a quarter to a third of the map
seems to me to be the project committing suicide. It will improve no doubt
as time goes on, but I was seriously expecting the threshold to be in the
90+% of data survival to proceed.

Yes, the 100/1 means that only a tiny fraction of the red and orange is
ideological, it's surely mostly about people who have moved on, in
interests, email addresses or mortality who we'll just never hear from. If
it were just their edits, I'd be much less concerned, but it's the way it
kills everyone else afterwards. It's even more galling when they deleted
the original data to make their edit, so they've effectively taken the
earlier work away too.

I'll certainly be contacting people now Frederick has provided an easy
means to evaluate the data, but I'm not overly optimistic about people
replying - I run a membership database and find maybe 10% of people change
their email addresses each year, and half of those don't tell me, and
that's when they've paid an annual sub to belong.

Is anyone going to answer the question about the threshold? I'm not being
rhetorical, I really would like to know.

David
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Mikel Maron]

Everyone, I'm seeing some really ugly and useless discussion on this thread. 
Yes, there are some real technical issues to discuss with the final stages of 
the license change, but those substantial issues are now lost in this thread. 
Review the etiquette rules 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette#Process_for_Moderation), and 
before you make your next post, consider how it stands up.

Mike, Andy and I are going to discuss how to handle some specific posts from 
this thread, and take action as required.

Mikel & talk moderators
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 6:38 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the
very last day and then, smilingly, tell us "you know what, I've decided
to disagree after all". That's four winter months wasted when they could
have been perfectly well used for averting damage.


Please don't shift the blame. The OSMF is pushing the change and will be 
to blame for the damage that occurs on April Fools.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Nathan Edgars II]

How about before we start attempting to "rescue" anything from the OSMF, 
we make sure we know what we're doing? What is the proper way to edit an 
object that has been modified by a decliner? What is the proper way to 
do this to a relation, especially one with many members and many 
revisions? How can we be sure that the OSMF will not apply a different 
algorithm that takes things into account that Frederik has not?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/13/2011 11:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not
say.


Personally I feel that it is unfortunate that we're allowing people to 
remain "undecided" for so long. Had 80n properly disagreed when he was 
first asked, his edits could long have been re-created by now. By 
holding out, he's in the position of being able to discount anyone 
touching his edits as a vandal, or someone making unnecessary work for 
themselves, as acting prematurely, or whatever, all the while hinting at 
"maybe I'll still agree, I haven't said it you know".


I, for one, have politely notified the major "undecided" contributors in 
my area that I will count their "undecided" as a "no" and start 
remapping their stuff in January, and frankly I would appreciate 
OSMF/LWG to set a date well before the planned license changeover and 
clearly say: If you haven't decided until then, that's a no.


Because we gain nothing from major contributors holding out until the 
very last day and then, smilingly, tell us "you know what, I've decided 
to disagree after all". That's four winter months wasted when they could 
have been perfectly well used for averting damage.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Jo]

Critical mass is there, at a ratio of more than a 100/1 and that is of the
people who had to speak out their opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I don't
have a doubt the license change will proceed. So remapping makes a lot of
sense from now on and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is doing it any
more.

I, for one, am glad a date for the transition to phase 5 has been
announced. We still have several months to limit the damages and that which
won't get rescued, will be remapped in due course afterwards.

Richard, I'd simply go ahead and get that area from a different source if
you have an acceptable one. Some people don't agree because they can't, but
others don't agree simply because they like to be obstructive. I'd have no
mercy on their edits. Not giving an answer to your question is also an
answer.

I do agree that it's unfortunate that new contributor's contributions may
get deleted if they are not rescued by somebody before April 1st, so it's
probably important that people are made aware of the situation at hand and
what to do about it.

Polyglot



2011/12/13 David Earl 

> On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote:
>
>> You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
>> deleted.
>>
>
> The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed.
> According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing,
> and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according
> to http://odbl.de/ . Frederick's map (THANK YOU!) is really the first
> indication I've seen of what the consequences are likely to be, yet what
> seems to be being said is that it will go ahead in April come what may.
>
> What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment even
> by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a critical
> mass.
>
> David
>
>
>
> __**_
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing.  I've 
> been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very 
> thread by an OSMF board member).

No. I am badgering you to say what you will do, or explain why you will not
say. Obviously, I would prefer it if you agreed, but it's your choice. I am
at a loss to work out why, for someone so au fait with the issues, you have
not done so yet.

The OSMF board member thing is a red herring: I am posting here in a
personal capacity, as I always will unless the message is signed otherwise.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091781.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[80n]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM, David Earl wrote:

> On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote:
>
>> You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
>> deleted.
>>
>
> The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed.
> According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing,
> and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according
> to http://odbl.de/ .


David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing.  I've been
badgered many times (including three times today, on this very thread by an
OSMF board member).

Many people have been railroaded into compliance by threats that their
contributions will be deleted, despite this being patently untrue (there is
at least one fork that will not delete anyone's data).

You should probably never believe in promises from politicians, especially
if they don't have a viable plan for how they will achive it,

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[David Earl]

On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote:

You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
deleted.


The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. 
According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, 
and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways 
according to http://odbl.de/ . Frederick's map (THANK YOU!) is really 
the first indication I've seen of what the consequences are likely to 
be, yet what seems to be being said is that it will go ahead in April 
come what may.


What are the precise, numeric criteria for proceeding? At the moment 
even by a vague definition I don't see how one could describe it as a 
critical mass.


David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water.

Can you answer the question, please?

You have edited a bunch of stuff in the North Cotswolds, which is an area
very near where I live and which I care about. I remember one changeset
called "Cotswolds", another called "Rock and rollright". I will remap it if
I need to but would rather not do so if unnecessary.

Could you answer, for what will be the third time of asking today, do you
intend to:

a) accept the CTs
b) reject the CTs
c) you are not willing to say

If c), which is the situation at present, why not? What reason can you give
me for, say, not deleting your contributions in Weybridge immediately and
reuploading from OS OpenData?

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091664.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[80n]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> 80n wrote:
> > Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
>
> There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as "non-CT content"
> can take two forms.
>
> There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by
> those who have declined the Contributor Terms.
>

The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water.
One form of content *will* get deleted, the other form *may* get deleted.
Trying to convert *may* into *will* doesn't help the hapless contributor
who just wants to edit something today.

Does anyone have a plan?

I'd suggest something like:
Step 1.  Identify what is safe content that can definitely be built up.
Step 2.  Prevent innocent contributors from touching content that is not
safe.
Is it any more complex than that?

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[80n]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?
>
> And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how?
>

I don't think I made any point about reconciling and improving non-CT
content.  Why do you bring that up?  It's a subject that needs to be
addressed but but its related to my point how?

You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get
deleted.  It will be very demotivational if that unavoidably deletes fresh
contributions made over the next three months.  What plans are there to put
some controls in place?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Mike N]

On 12/13/2011 2:27 PM, Hillsman, Edward wrote:

Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning
curve to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT,
and may not even know about the license change, such a person has every
right to expect that his/her contributions will “stick” and not
disappear next spring because s/he did not know to look first for
whether it is OK to edit something already in the OSM database.


 This is the primary reason I haven't tried to create any local OSM 
meetups.


   But, (Smacking self up-side the head), I spent a block of time over 
the last 2 weeks fixing up an area that had been edited by some newbies 
- in too much of a hurry to check the license view.   And now that I 
check the license view, I see that the whole area will be nuked back to 
the state of 2008 or so.   So 80n's suggestion about disallowing edits 
to non-CT data isn't so bad.   It makes sense only to delete it at this 
time.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Hillsman, Edward]

This will sound like I'm ranting, and if it does, that's not my intent. I'm 
really wanting to help creating additional problems. So . . .

It won't help improving and reconciling the non-CT data. But it will keep 
anyone else from adding (and then losing) data to features slated for deletion. 
Thinking in terms of a NEW user, who is already facing a steep learning curve 
to contribute to OSM, and who has by default accepted the new CT, and may not 
even know about the license change, such a person has every right to expect 
that his/her contributions will "stick" and not disappear next spring because 
s/he did not know to look first for whether it is OK to edit something already 
in the OSM database. "The big we" (the OSM community) do encourage people to 
edit/correct/update whatever is in the data, if it is incorrect or incomplete, 
as one of the strengths of our crowd-sourced approach to mapping. It is 
difficult enough getting people involved without asking them to pay attention 
to a problem that they did not create but that could come back to bite them. 
Again, I'm thinking of new users here. Ideally, if someone selects and tries to 
edit a feature that is subject to deletion or reversion, I would have something 
pop up with a brief, clear note that this contains "bad data" and should not be 
edited, but asking the person to create a new node/way based on their own 
observation, and to feel free to copy any tags that they can confirm from their 
own observation (for example, it  is indeed a Shell station and does indeed 
sell diesel).

This will involve some programming and some attention to how to explain it. But 
without something like this, I think that this spring we're going to lose 
contributors who don't know anything about this and really shouldn't have to, 
when their contributions disappear. I don't want that to happen.

Ed Hillsman


>Richard Weait richard at weait.com 
>
>  wrote
>Tue Dec 13 18:47:28 GMT 2011
>


>

>

>On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n <80n80n at 
>gmail.com> wrote:

>[ ... ]

>> Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?

>

>And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how?



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 12/13/2011 2:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new
content, often using the new sources which were not available when the
content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good.


Disagree. It's only good if done with care to not remove any information.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?

There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as "non-CT content"
can take two forms.

There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by
those who have declined the Contributor Terms.

I agree that it would be good to encourage people not to build edits upon
this. In the New Year I intend to switch the Potlatch 2 licence status
display from off-by-default to on-by-default, with an explanatory notice.
People are increasingly deleting such content and replacing with new
content, often using the new sources which were not available when the
content was first input (e.g. Bing imagery and OS OpenData) and that's good.

There is a second content: content that may be relicensed, but we don't know
yet. This is the content input by those who have neither declined nor
accepted the Contributor Terms.

In most cases, this is because the user simply isn't aware of the issue.
Individual contact by local mappers often proves very fruitful in resolving
this. It would be premature IMHO to delete or block edits to this content;
the user may agree next week. Indeed, I'm delighted that just in the last
few weeks, I've seen several UK cities and large towns "saved"!

But there are a small number of mappers who are very well aware of the issue
and have not signalled their intention, and you, of course, are the most
prominent.

I would encourage you to accept the terms. It is not crucial to the success
of FOSM that OSM fails, and vice versa; you yourself have said many times
that it is the _community_ which determines the future success of a project.
Indeed, I hope both thrive, which is why I took the trouble to alert the
FOSM list that I was actively remapping so that you have the choice of which
content to retain (and you very kindly said that my mapping was of a good
quality which you'd welcome in FOSM, for which thank you :) ).

No-one who has read your postings will be in any doubt that allowing your
content to continue in OSM is an endorsement of the CTs or ODbL. Though
TimSC and I disagreed on pretty much everything, I think his final decision,
to place his edits in the public domain, was an honourable one.

But if you can't see your way to accepting the terms, it would be honourable
of you to click 'Decline', so that those people mapping in the areas where
you have worked know where they stand.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Editing-of-content-that-will-be-deleted-on-April-1st-tp7090874p7091028.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?

And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st

[80n]

There are some people [1] who are starting to get upset about the fact that
contributions that they are making will get deleted on April 1st.

Innocent contributors who know little or nothing about the license change
are happily editing roads that will soon get deleted.  There's little to
tell them that this will happen.

Shouldn't the API be preventing edits to non-CT content already?  There is
little point in allowing edits on top of non-CT content as they'll get
deleted in April.  At the same time this will seriously piss-off anyone who
loses all their hard work.

Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content?

80n

[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-December/060996.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk