[OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
I have mapped in one of the affected areas. Some of my work there pre-dates Anthony's. He modified it, and I am guessing that this is why some of my work was also deleted. As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. The removal of his data yesterday removed the shop completely, instead of simply taking it back to my original contribution (location, name, shop tag, but no address tags). If this is the way that the data removal will be handled for contributors who do not accept the new license, then it's going to cascade quite a bit farther than intended, and it is probably going to make a lot of contributors who DO accept the new license terms pretty unhappy. So, I would strongly encourage that any future deletions be handled with greater sensitivity than this one was. I will go back and restore my work on this shop manually, but I wanted to bring this occurrence into the discussion before doing so. I haven't checked yet for what else was lost, but because my interest is in cycling, I immediately noticed the bicycle shop was missing. Ed Hillsman On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:26:46 -0500, Anthony o...@inbox.orgmailto:o...@inbox.org wrote: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] What the license change is going to do to the map Message-ID: aanlktine3r+djqowwmkiqmhqouofw9jerr1r3yuzs...@mail.gmail.commailto:aanlktine3r+djqowwmkiqmhqouofw9jerr1r3yuzs...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.commailto:alhar...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.orgmailto:o...@inbox.org wrote: http://www.sharedmap.org/bna.html http://www.sharedmap.org/before.PNG http://www.sharedmap.org/after.PNG I enjoy a thread that is well on its way to a flame war as much as the next guy, but do you mind telling us the methodology used to achieve this result? ?Last time it was discussed, there was a lot of debate on how to properly tag a node, way, or relation as license compatible or not because this is a multi-user system. ?I am curious: how did you reach your conclusions? The board voted to delete my contributions, and this is the before and after. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote: I have mapped in one of the affected areas. Some of my work there pre-dates Anthony’s. He modified it, and I am guessing that this is why some of my work was also deleted. As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. The removal of his data yesterday removed the shop completely, instead of simply taking it back to my original contribution (location, name, shop tag, but no address tags). If this is the way that the data removal will be handled for contributors who do not accept the new license, then it’s going to cascade quite a bit farther than intended, and it is probably going to make a lot of contributors who DO accept the new license terms pretty unhappy. So, I would strongly encourage that any future deletions be handled with greater sensitivity than this one was. I find it hard to see how future deletions cannot be handled with anything more than *less* sensitivity than this one. Maybe you could get the same level of sensitivity, if you delete just one user's contribution per week. But that would take about 1,500 years to accomplish. I will go back and restore my work on this shop manually, but I wanted to bring this occurrence into the discussion before doing so. I haven’t checked yet for what else was lost, but because my interest is in cycling, I immediately noticed the bicycle shop was missing. Here's what happened. Grand plaza was mapped as one single building. I deleted that one building in order to map it as 3 separate buildings, because that's essentially what it is (3 buildings, with a shared roof/awning/whatever). So when the reversion took place, the 3 buildings were deleted completely). In any case, I'm sorry this happened to you. I'd gladly help you fix it, but I'm currently blocked from editing with my main account, and if I edited it with one of my other accounts they would quickly get discovered. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Here's what happened. Grand plaza was mapped as one single building. I deleted that one building in order to map it as 3 separate buildings, because that's essentially what it is (3 buildings, with a shared roof/awning/whatever). So when the reversion took place, the 3 buildings were deleted completely). Basically, the same thing that happened with Ehrlich Road, which was a single road which I deleted to change into a dual carriageway. This kind of stuff is going to happen constantly once you start mass-deleting tens of thousands of accounts. That's why the deletion strategy needs to be set long long long before people are required to decide whether or not to approve the switch. This is something I've been saying for a long time, but I'm glad it has finally been shown rather than just said. The deletion of one single user who didn't even edit that much, cascades through an entire map (some of which has been fixed, but y'all have a *lot* more to go). Maybe the 1,500 year plan is the way to go. It could always be sped up as y'all get better at cleaning up from the big mess you're making. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Hi Anthony, Don't worry about it. You did great work on the area, because (I gather) you live out there. I live and work quite a bit farther east, and I do most of my mapping closer to where I live. I added the bicycle shop and building based on a single visit. I just wanted to bring this example into the discussion, because I don't think the technical details of removing data, or their implications, were well-thought-out. Ed Hillsman -Original Message- From: dipie...@gmail.com [mailto:dipie...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: February 10, 2011 8:20 To: Hillsman, Edward Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map) On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote: I have mapped in one of the affected areas. Some of my work there pre-dates Anthony's. He modified it, and I am guessing that this is why some of my work was also deleted. As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. The removal of his data yesterday removed the shop completely, instead of simply taking it back to my original contribution (location, name, shop tag, but no address tags). If this is the way that the data removal will be handled for contributors who do not accept the new license, then it's going to cascade quite a bit farther than intended, and it is probably going to make a lot of contributors who DO accept the new license terms pretty unhappy. So, I would strongly encourage that any future deletions be handled with greater sensitivity than this one was. I find it hard to see how future deletions cannot be handled with anything more than *less* sensitivity than this one. Maybe you could get the same level of sensitivity, if you delete just one user's contribution per week. But that would take about 1,500 years to accomplish. I will go back and restore my work on this shop manually, but I wanted to bring this occurrence into the discussion before doing so. I haven't checked yet for what else was lost, but because my interest is in cycling, I immediately noticed the bicycle shop was missing. Here's what happened. Grand plaza was mapped as one single building. I deleted that one building in order to map it as 3 separate buildings, because that's essentially what it is (3 buildings, with a shared roof/awning/whatever). So when the reversion took place, the 3 buildings were deleted completely). In any case, I'm sorry this happened to you. I'd gladly help you fix it, but I'm currently blocked from editing with my main account, and if I edited it with one of my other accounts they would quickly get discovered. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Am I the only one who is wondering what this whole thread is about? Has Anthony's edits been removed? If so, why? I haven't heard of the license change actually being implemented ATM, and certainly not that edits are being removed. So, what is this all about? Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote: Hi Anthony, Don't worry about it. You did great work on the area, because (I gather) you live out there. I live and work quite a bit farther east, and I do most of my mapping closer to where I live. I added the bicycle shop and building based on a single visit. I just wanted to bring this example into the discussion, because I don't think the technical details of removing data, or their implications, were well-thought-out. Ed Hillsman Thanks. Yes, the main reason I knew Grand Plaza was more than one building was because I've been there. On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Am I the only one who is wondering what this whole thread is about? Has Anthony's edits been removed? If so, why? I haven't heard of the license change actually being implemented ATM, and certainly not that edits are being removed. All my edits were removed because the LWG thinks they were traced from Google. It doesn't have anything directly to do with the license change, though if it weren't for the license change I probably would have tried to get them to stop. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On 10 February 2011 14:33, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Am I the only one who is wondering what this whole thread is about? Has Anthony's edits been removed? If so, why? I haven't heard of the license change actually being implemented ATM, and certainly not that edits are being removed. So, what is this all about? See the other thread What the license change is going to do to the map from yesterday. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Anthony wrote: I said on a mailing list that I traced from Google. The LWG asked me which of my edits should be deleted. I told them none of them should be deleted. So naturally they deleted all of them. That settles the point of whether or not the removal of your contributions was justified. Tracing from Google imagery is not allowed - this has been said many times, in case it was not already clear from Google's license. You did not clarify when asked and the administrators made the prudent choice of wholesale removal : no one here want to risk tainting the OpenStreetMap database with data that put it at legal risk. Now, as for how the removal was handled, I believe there is room for improvement : the removal should have been a revert (including the deletions) and not a deletion like what seems to have happened. Could the administrators who executed the removal chime in to tell us how it was done ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
Ed, Hillsman, Edward wrote: As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. And on October 14, Anthony removed that bicycle shop, and it has been removed ever since. On October 19, Anthony created two nodes, 535406826 and 535416420, both for this same bicycle shop. These have been affected by the reversion because by working the way he did, Anthony severed the history ties to your original version. Had he simply added to your node, instead of deleting and re-creating it, then a clean reversal would have been possible. I apologise if this has already been said elsewhere in this thread; I'm only skimming messages. 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] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ed, Hillsman, Edward wrote: As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. And on October 14, Anthony removed that bicycle shop, and it has been removed ever since. On October 19, Anthony created two nodes, 535406826 and 535416420, both for this same bicycle shop. These have been affected by the reversion because by working the way he did, Anthony severed the history ties to your original version. Had he simply added to your node, instead of deleting and re-creating it, then a clean reversal would have been possible. I apologise if this has already been said elsewhere in this thread; I'm only skimming messages. Yes, it's what I said in the other thread. My creations were reverted, but my deletions were not. Reverting situations where a node/way was deleted and recreated are pretty much impossible to handle programatically, as reverting the deletions would likely cause even more problems, with duplicated data. But deleting and recreating is sometimes the easiest way to make a fix. (I did this sometimes when turning a TIGER way into a dual carriageway, and IIRC I did it in this particular situation because I was turning a standalone node into an interpolation way.) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] collateral damage (was: What the license change is going to do to the map)
2011/2/10 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: As an example, on September 5, 2009, I added Carrollwood Bicycle Emporium (48467), a bicycle shop, to a shopping center. On October 12, Anthony added an address to this bicycle shop. And on October 14, Anthony removed that bicycle shop, and it has been removed ever since. On October 19, Anthony created two nodes, 535406826 and 535416420, both for this same bicycle shop. These have been affected by the reversion because by working the way he did, Anthony severed the history ties to your original version. Had he simply added to your node, instead of deleting and re-creating it, then a clean reversal would have been possible. I think that in this particular case it might be OK that deletions were not undone (you could argue that deletion with Google as base is not possible, at least it would be almost impossible to proove). But for the license change I wonder: how will we deal with the deletion part of edits from contributors that did not agree to the new ct/odbl? Will these deletions be reverted or not? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
