[OSM-talk] Relicensing timeline
Hello Are there any news on a date when we can expect that any data that is going to be deleted is no longer in the database? In one of the town I map we're going to lose quite a number of pedestrian streets and we have decided to organize a mapping party to recreate them (and add missing POIs etc.). The problem is that on the next week end we have a nice opportunity to promote the mapping party, so we must know the date before this wednesday (to be able to print flyers): do you think that 28 April would be a safe date, or is it better to wait until May? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relicensing timeline
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote: > Hello > > Are there any news on a date when we can expect that any data that > is going to be deleted is no longer in the database? The most-recent update is here: http://blog.osmfoundation.org/2012/04/05/license-change-update-getting-it-right/ > In one of the town I map we're going to lose quite a number > of pedestrian streets and we have decided to organize a > mapping party to recreate them (and add missing POIs etc.). > > The problem is that on the next week end we have a nice > opportunity to promote the mapping party, so we must know the > date before this wednesday (to be able to print flyers): > do you think that 28 April would be a safe date, or is it better > to wait until May? I don't think that the update offers you a guaranteed answer. In part because mappers are still busy remapping. On the other hand, perhaps your mapping party does not need to be after the license switch? If before, you'll be replacing data seamlessly with fresh data. If after, you'll be adding fresh data in an area that is lacking. The major scheduled downtime has been completed, so you could even have your mapping party during the redaction process. You'll want to save edits often while the redaction bot is running to avoid edit conflicts. But that's good advice for a mapping party anyway, since there is more likelihood of another editor active at the same time. :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relicensing timeline
On 2012-04-07 at 13:37:16 -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > On the other hand, perhaps > your mapping party does not need to be after the license switch? We would like not to do that mostly for one reason: the streets we want to map are in an area where gps reception isn't very good, so we planned to use walking papers (or other printouts of current OSM data). If the license switch hasn't happened yet such printouts would be tainted by the old license, and we would risk using a tained printout even if we try to delete existing objects before the mapping party (how can we be sure that we have deleted everything?) This IMHO is fine for small remappings by an existing OSM user (if I did something wrong it will disappear from the DB, but I can just take my old tracks+notes and add it again) but it's not very nice on a MP, when we hope to have new contributors. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Relicensing timeline
Elena ``of Valhalla'' gmail.com> writes: > We would like not to do that mostly for one reason: the streets > we want to map are in an area where gps reception isn't very good, > so we planned to use walking papers (or other printouts of current > OSM data). > > If the license switch hasn't happened yet such printouts would be > tainted by the old license, and we would risk using a tained > printout even if we try to delete existing objects before > the mapping party (how can we be sure that we have deleted everything?) Have you ever tried using Walking Papers with aerial photographs? -- Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
