Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:28 PM, 80n wrote: > Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account? I doubt it. > > How would a corporation indicate that their ODbL licensed derivative > databases can be imported back into OSM? An excellent question for the LWG. Can you now drop the dark mutterings regarding intentions because we haven't signed something which may not exist? Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:57 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you've missed my point. Suppose I have some data that has been > given to me under an ODbL license by a company. How can I determine whether > or not I am allowed to import that data into OSM? What does that company > have to do to signal that it has agreed to OSM's contributor terms? > > Does the company create an account - which creates the necessary agreement > between them and OSMF- and then refer the OSM contributor to that account > when asked? How would an OSM contributor indicate that they are not the > owner of the data they are uploading? In amongst this discussion (which is a roundabout approach to pointing out that ODbL datasources aren't necessarily compatible with the CT's, rather than anything to do with CloudMade) I just have one thing to say: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org is thataway > Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 23 July 2010 00:05, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell? And that really is the > point. > > How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM > unless > > there's some way of knowing that they've signed the contributor terms. > > How's this all supposed to work? > > > > Yes, if the data is valuable enough to the project, the OSMF can > consider it without going via the Contributor Terms. > I think you've missed my point. Suppose I have some data that has been given to me under an ODbL license by a company. How can I determine whether or not I am allowed to import that data into OSM? What does that company have to do to signal that it has agreed to OSM's contributor terms? Does the company create an account - which creates the necessary agreement between them and OSMF- and then refer the OSM contributor to that account when asked? How would an OSM contributor indicate that they are not the owner of the data they are uploading? 80n > > The Contributor Terms are like not to last forever. > > / Grant > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On 23 July 2010 00:05, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell? And that really is the point. > How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM unless > there's some way of knowing that they've signed the contributor terms. > How's this all supposed to work? > Yes, if the data is valuable enough to the project, the OSMF can consider it without going via the Contributor Terms. The Contributor Terms are like not to last forever. / Grant ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: > > > 80n wrote: > > > >> > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have > >> already > >> signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to > >> draw > >> some conclusions about their intentions with our data. > > ... > > Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account? I doubt > > it. > > > First you ask if CloudMade has signed up to the contributor terms, then you > say CloudMade doesn't have an OSM account. So how, if they don't have an > account should they sign up to the contributor terms?! > There's an OSM user called CloudMade, but that user has only ever made one edit. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/CloudMade/edits Is this the real CloudMade? How can we tell? And that really is the point. How can anyone tell whether they can add someone else's work to OSM unless there's some way of knowing that they've signed the contributor terms. How's this all supposed to work? 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
80n wrote: > >> > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have >> already >> signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to >> draw >> some conclusions about their intentions with our data. > ... > Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account? I doubt > it. > First you ask if CloudMade has signed up to the contributor terms, then you say CloudMade doesn't have an OSM account. So how, if they don't have an account should they sign up to the contributor terms?! -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/an-estimate-of-data-loss-under-relicensing-tp5324659p5327463.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:48 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) < > robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote: > > Graham Jones wrote: > > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would > want > > > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of > looking > > > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa > that > > > it will make negligible difference. > > > > The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong > > feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be > > hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be > > persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL > > > > However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, > > in two ways: > > > > First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who > > could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA > > or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, > > you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you > > are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you > > will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. > > > > Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could > > make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause > > in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added > > data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. > > > > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already > signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to draw > some conclusions about their intentions with our data. > > Yet more dark mutterings from 80n. > > Where and when could we voluntarily sign up? Oh right... that's exactly the > next step for the LWG that you guys are holding up. > > Does CloudMade as a corporate body have an existing OSM account? I doubt it. How would a corporation indicate that their ODbL licensed derivative databases can be imported back into OSM? 80n > Steve > > stevecoast.com > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) > wrote: > Graham Jones wrote: > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want > > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking > > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that > > it will make negligible difference. > > The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong > feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be > hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be > persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL > > However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, > in two ways: > > First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who > could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA > or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, > you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you > are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you > will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. > > Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could > make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause > in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added > data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. > > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already > signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to draw > some conclusions about their intentions with our data. Yet more dark mutterings from 80n. Where and when could we voluntarily sign up? Oh right... that's exactly the next step for the LWG that you guys are holding up. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:42 PM, 80n wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Grant Slater > wrote: > On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental > > forks are beginning to appear... > > > > 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork. > > Grant, if you read my posts carefully what I've been saying is that the ODbL > proponents should have forked. They'd have got what they wanted a whole lot > sooner and we wouldn't be in this sorry mess now. Nah, you PD folks should fork like I said a few years ago, but that would take actual effort. Painting what the LWG, OSMF and a bunch of individuals are doing as 'ODbL proponents' doesn't fly when many of them are PD folks who have just looked at the logic of the situation and concluded the ODbL is the best way forward. Steve stevecoast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com > wrote: > Graham Jones wrote: > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would > want > > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of > looking > > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa > that > > it will make negligible difference. > > The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong > feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be > hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be > persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL > > However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, > in two ways: > > First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who > could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA > or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, > you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you > are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you > will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. > > Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could > make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause > in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added > data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to draw some conclusions about their intentions with our data. 80n > This makes the > SA provision in ODbL pretty much worthless as far as the main OSM > database is concerned. Others can benefit from our work, but we could > be blocked from using others' improvements. > > In this debate, I think it's important to distinguish between whether > contributors are happy to re-license their contributions, and the > separate issue of whether the license should then be changed, given > (in particular) the resulting loss of data. > > Personally, I'd be happy to re-licensed my contributions under ODbL, > but I'm not sure whether I am happy with the proposed contributor > terms. (I kind of like the SA provisions.) I've yet to come to a > conclusion on whether the license should be changed -- I guess that > rather depends on the actual data loss we'll be faced with. I feel > rather more more strongly that OSM should definitely not adopt the > proposed contributor terms, for the reasons given above. > > Despite this I voted "For ODbL" on the doodle poll, since it > specifically asked about re-licensing under ODbL. (I also hadn't > appreciated the implications of the contributor terms at that point.) > If OSMF only offers a straight choice between ODbL + the current > contributor terms, or not re-licensing at all, I'd be in rather a > quandary. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. > Experimental > > forks are beginning to appear... > > > > 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork. > Grant, if you read my posts carefully what I've been saying is that the ODbL proponents should have forked. They'd have got what they wanted a whole lot sooner and we wouldn't be in this sorry mess now. 80n > > / Grant. > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
Graham Jones wrote: > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that > it will make negligible difference. The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, in two ways: First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. This makes the SA provision in ODbL pretty much worthless as far as the main OSM database is concerned. Others can benefit from our work, but we could be blocked from using others' improvements. In this debate, I think it's important to distinguish between whether contributors are happy to re-license their contributions, and the separate issue of whether the license should then be changed, given (in particular) the resulting loss of data. Personally, I'd be happy to re-licensed my contributions under ODbL, but I'm not sure whether I am happy with the proposed contributor terms. (I kind of like the SA provisions.) I've yet to come to a conclusion on whether the license should be changed -- I guess that rather depends on the actual data loss we'll be faced with. I feel rather more more strongly that OSM should definitely not adopt the proposed contributor terms, for the reasons given above. Despite this I voted "For ODbL" on the doodle poll, since it specifically asked about re-licensing under ODbL. (I also hadn't appreciated the implications of the contributor terms at that point.) If OSMF only offers a straight choice between ODbL + the current contributor terms, or not re-licensing at all, I'd be in rather a quandary. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On 22 July 2010 20:45, Graham Jones wrote: > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that > it will make negligible difference. > > I thought the sticking point was about compatibility of the new licence > with some of our sources of data such as OS OpenData, which is why I got > interested in how much data is derived from OpenData (see separate > thread...) - The attribution requirements for derived works are different > between the existing and proposed licences - the main reason I can see for > refusing the new licence is if it will mean removing data derived from those > sources. > > He has contacted only the largest contributors. It is a bit of self serving mail to some extent. As he mentioned, he could twist the statistics as he would like. That's the main reason why the process is to allow for a non mandotary sign-up period for people willing to change. Only then we would have some real statistics to present to people. However, TimSC has to be commending for not trying to twist his stat in one or another. I would be curious to see if he worked with history data. And yes on many points, the new licence is very similar especially on the share alike point, but also introduces a larger change for produced work. I am not going to argue over what has been said in the past few things as it would be a waste of time. Emilie Laffray ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that it will make negligible difference. I thought the sticking point was about compatibility of the new licence with some of our sources of data such as OS OpenData, which is why I got interested in how much data is derived from OpenData (see separate thread...) - The attribution requirements for derived works are different between the existing and proposed licences - the main reason I can see for refusing the new licence is if it will mean removing data derived from those sources. Graham. On 22 July 2010 19:34, TimSC wrote: > On 22/07/10 19:24, Grant Slater wrote: > >> On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n<80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. >>> Experimental >>> forks are beginning to appear... >>> >>> >>> >> 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork. >> >> / Grant. >> >> > Then he would know, wouldn't he! :) > > TimSC > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On 22/07/10 19:24, Grant Slater wrote: On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n<80n...@gmail.com> wrote: There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental forks are beginning to appear... 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork. / Grant. Then he would know, wouldn't he! :) TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On 22 July 2010 18:23, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental > forks are beginning to appear... > 80n, you were one of the people agitators pushing for a fork. / Grant. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to do this. > > Having read this a I've decided its about time I read up on licence issue! > I guess that the potential loss of a lot of data could be a reason for some > people voting against the changes > There''s also signs that the project is starting to splinter. Experimental forks are beginning to appear... > > Jason > > > On 22 July 2010 10:34, TimSC wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> To try to get a feeling for the potential consequences of relicensing, I >> have been doing analysis of edits in the UK and how contributors have voted >> on the doodle poll. I feel that we should look before we leap, regarding the >> possible impact of people who refuse to relicense. I wondered how many >> nodes, ways and relations would be transitioned in relicensing. I used the >> crude assumption that each object has only one editor, which would >> underestimate the impact of refuser contributions. I requested the biggest >> contributors to vote on the doodle poll to improve the turn out. Although I >> only have votes for 1% of individual UK contributors, doodle now has a 24% >> turn out when weighted by mapping contribution size. A few mappers account >> for a large proportion of UK data. Previously, I did not notice how many >> mappers had just done a few small changes: the median number of nodes >> contributed is only 10! I also have not considered the response rate once >> OSMF pitch the question to contributors, and what happens if the OS data >> cannot be relicensed. >> >> I want to next give my excuses for not publishing the raw statistics. Even >> with 24% turn out (by contribution size), the are a few non-committal large >> contributors (e.g. me and a few others). Unless the turn out rate is higher, >> the stats can be twisted depending on the mood I am in. But there is a >> pattern emerging. The overall UK picture seems to be fairly bright for >> minimal data loss. Every big contributor I contact votes "yes" to >> relicencing (with or without reservations). I estimate an overall data loss >> of 5% to 17% for the UK (ignoring the effect of objects with multiple >> editors). >> >> The main exception to this is a small cluster of refusers around London. >> (I am not just talking about myself here.) The worst case scenario is 50% >> data loss in the Greater London area but, really, I don't know how it would >> play out. Because of the density of mapping, there is more likely to be >> multiple editors in this area too. Basically, it's a wild card. But I would >> be surprised if there are big problems outside the London/SE area. Unless of >> course 5% is a big problem - I am not too sure how much work it would take >> to patch up omissions, even assuming a relatively smooth transition. >> >> Anyway, I never was much good at statistics! I just wanted to circulate >> something, after many contributors were kind enough to honour my request and >> vote on doodle. >> >> TimSC >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
Thanks for taking the time to do this. Having read this a I've decided its about time I read up on licence issue! I guess that the potential loss of a lot of data could be a reason for some people voting against the changes Jason On 22 July 2010 10:34, TimSC wrote: > Hi all, > > To try to get a feeling for the potential consequences of relicensing, I > have been doing analysis of edits in the UK and how contributors have voted > on the doodle poll. I feel that we should look before we leap, regarding the > possible impact of people who refuse to relicense. I wondered how many > nodes, ways and relations would be transitioned in relicensing. I used the > crude assumption that each object has only one editor, which would > underestimate the impact of refuser contributions. I requested the biggest > contributors to vote on the doodle poll to improve the turn out. Although I > only have votes for 1% of individual UK contributors, doodle now has a 24% > turn out when weighted by mapping contribution size. A few mappers account > for a large proportion of UK data. Previously, I did not notice how many > mappers had just done a few small changes: the median number of nodes > contributed is only 10! I also have not considered the response rate once > OSMF pitch the question to contributors, and what happens if the OS data > cannot be relicensed. > > I want to next give my excuses for not publishing the raw statistics. Even > with 24% turn out (by contribution size), the are a few non-committal large > contributors (e.g. me and a few others). Unless the turn out rate is higher, > the stats can be twisted depending on the mood I am in. But there is a > pattern emerging. The overall UK picture seems to be fairly bright for > minimal data loss. Every big contributor I contact votes "yes" to > relicencing (with or without reservations). I estimate an overall data loss > of 5% to 17% for the UK (ignoring the effect of objects with multiple > editors). > > The main exception to this is a small cluster of refusers around London. (I > am not just talking about myself here.) The worst case scenario is 50% data > loss in the Greater London area but, really, I don't know how it would play > out. Because of the density of mapping, there is more likely to be multiple > editors in this area too. Basically, it's a wild card. But I would be > surprised if there are big problems outside the London/SE area. Unless of > course 5% is a big problem - I am not too sure how much work it would take > to patch up omissions, even assuming a relatively smooth transition. > > Anyway, I never was much good at statistics! I just wanted to circulate > something, after many contributors were kind enough to honour my request and > vote on doodle. > > TimSC > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
Hi all, To try to get a feeling for the potential consequences of relicensing, I have been doing analysis of edits in the UK and how contributors have voted on the doodle poll. I feel that we should look before we leap, regarding the possible impact of people who refuse to relicense. I wondered how many nodes, ways and relations would be transitioned in relicensing. I used the crude assumption that each object has only one editor, which would underestimate the impact of refuser contributions. I requested the biggest contributors to vote on the doodle poll to improve the turn out. Although I only have votes for 1% of individual UK contributors, doodle now has a 24% turn out when weighted by mapping contribution size. A few mappers account for a large proportion of UK data. Previously, I did not notice how many mappers had just done a few small changes: the median number of nodes contributed is only 10! I also have not considered the response rate once OSMF pitch the question to contributors, and what happens if the OS data cannot be relicensed. I want to next give my excuses for not publishing the raw statistics. Even with 24% turn out (by contribution size), the are a few non-committal large contributors (e.g. me and a few others). Unless the turn out rate is higher, the stats can be twisted depending on the mood I am in. But there is a pattern emerging. The overall UK picture seems to be fairly bright for minimal data loss. Every big contributor I contact votes "yes" to relicencing (with or without reservations). I estimate an overall data loss of 5% to 17% for the UK (ignoring the effect of objects with multiple editors). The main exception to this is a small cluster of refusers around London. (I am not just talking about myself here.) The worst case scenario is 50% data loss in the Greater London area but, really, I don't know how it would play out. Because of the density of mapping, there is more likely to be multiple editors in this area too. Basically, it's a wild card. But I would be surprised if there are big problems outside the London/SE area. Unless of course 5% is a big problem - I am not too sure how much work it would take to patch up omissions, even assuming a relatively smooth transition. Anyway, I never was much good at statistics! I just wanted to circulate something, after many contributors were kind enough to honour my request and vote on doodle. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
