Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 22:22, Grant Slater wrote: > Sorry, my abuse reply was to the hypothetical question. > > But the un-winding of edits still stands. What about abusive edits that tweak the location of nodes by 0.1mm by someone pro-CT/ODBL just so they can claim the node was their creation? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 13:05, Nick Hocking wrote: > Ok - just to clarify. > > If I've edited a road then the bot does it's thing and then I make further > improvements, > the bots effect can be automatically removed without losing either of my > edits. > I don't know the details yet, but the document does cover this scenario. Ah, actually discussion has been started here: [OSM-dev] Measuring the current state of play wrt new contributor terms http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 13:07, John Smith wrote: > On 12 August 2010 22:03, Liz wrote: >> I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category, >> and it would not be classified as "abusive" because it did add additional >> information to the tags. > > Not only that, but others on the talk-au list at the time thought it > was a good idea and added value, I don't recall anyone asking for a > revert, and others had made similar changes in the past, but on a > smaller scale, it was those changes that actually gave me the idea to > do it anyway. > Sorry, my abuse reply was to the hypothetical question. But the un-winding of edits still stands. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 22:03, Liz wrote: > I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category, > and it would not be classified as "abusive" because it did add additional > information to the tags. Not only that, but others on the talk-au list at the time thought it was a good idea and added value, I don't recall anyone asking for a revert, and others had made similar changes in the past, but on a smaller scale, it was those changes that actually gave me the idea to do it anyway. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
"Thankfully worrying too much. We have the full history of all changes, his edits would not be carried across (unwound) but the existing data if approved for ODbL would be carried across. There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these sorts of abusive edits. There is a full document coming out in a few days (initially) on the dev list detailing this. Regards Grant" Thanks Grant, Ok - just to clarify. If I've edited a road then the bot does it's thing and then I make further improvements, the bots effect can be automatically removed without losing either of my edits. Cheers Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Nick Hocking wrote: > It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the > streets in (say) Canberra On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote: > There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these > sorts of abusive edits. I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category, and it would not be classified as "abusive" because it did add additional information to the tags. so why is such an edit assumed to be "abusive" when there are clear calls for "assuming that people act in good faith"? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 21:28, Nick Hocking wrote: > Have I got this right or am I worrying too much? It's unclear what will happen at this point, since no one has the chance to actually disagree any more, although there was a thread about what to do about people that aren't contactable. The outcome was that it would be underhanded or shady to include their data unless specific approval was given, regardless of the actual legal options. Wikimedia relicensed their data in a shady legal tactic and many seem to be still upset about it. As for removing data, it wouldn't be that simple, you would have to follow the historical changesets until you hit an editor that hasn't agreed, at which point you can no longer update that particular data any further. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
On 12 August 2010 12:28, Nick Hocking wrote: > > It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the > streets in (say) Canberra and then failed to > agree to a re-licence, then all those streets in Canberra would be thrown > away in their entirety (or hidden from publication). > > Have I got this right or am I worrying too much? > Thankfully worrying too much. We have the full history of all changes, his edits would not be carried across (unwound) but the existing data if approved for ODbL would be carried across. There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these sorts of abusive edits. There is a full document coming out in a few days (initially) on the dev list detailing this. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Deletion of Australian data
I haven't read all the posts regarding this matter so maybe I have missed some clarifications but It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the streets in (say) Canberra and then failed to agree to a re-licence, then all those streets in Canberra would be thrown away in their entirety (or hidden from publication). Have I got this right or am I worrying too much? Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
